RAM KUMAR RAM CHANDRA Vs. DOMINION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision, under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The applicant had instituted a suit, in the Court of the Judge, Small Cause Court, Kanpur, against the Dominion of India for recovery of damages resulting from the shortage and non-delivery of two bags of ginger, which were made over to the Administration of the G. I. P. Railway for transmission from Wadi Bunder to Kanpur. In the title of the suit in the plaint the applicant had described himself thus : "Messrs. Ram Kumar Ram Chandra through Ram Kumar Adult son of Sarjoo Prasad caste Vaisb residing at Naya Ganj Kanpur, partner of the firm". In para. 1 of the plaint the applicant had stated 'that the plaintiffs are a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act and Lala Ram Kumar who has signed and verified the plaint, is registered partner of the firm."

(2.) On behalf of the defendant the allegation in para. 1 of the plaint was denied and the liability for payment of any damages was also disputed. One of the issues framed in the suit was : "Are plaintiffs entitled to sue?" The applicant attempted to prove by oral evidence that Ram Kumar was a partner in the firm Messrs. Ram Kumar Ram Chandra. The trial Court held that oral evidence to prove that Lala Ram Kumar was a partner of the firm was inadmissible and that fact could be proved only by production of a copy of the Register of Firms, which the plaintiff had failed to produce. The issue mentioned above was, therefore, decided against the plaintiff and it was held that it was not proved that Lala Ram Kumar was a partner in the firm. The suit was, accordingly, dismissed in view of the provisions of Section 69 (2), Partnership Act.

(3.) The revision came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court. He agreed with the opinion of the trial Court that the fact that the name of Lala Ram Kumar had been shown in the Register of Firms as a partner of Messrs. Ram Kumar Ram Chandra could not be proved otherwise than by the production of a certified copy of the Register of Firms. On behalf of the applicant it was contended before the learned single Judge that in the present case the person suing was hot Lala Ram Kumar but the firm and as such the second condition laid down in Section 69 (2) was not applicable and reliance was placed upon a decision of the late Chief Court of Oudh in Sardar Singar Singh v. Sikri Brothers, A. I. R. (31) 1944 Oudh 37, where it was held that in a case where the suit was brought in the name of a firm it was the firm that was the person suing and not any partner of the firm. The view taken in the Oudh case cited above did not find favour with the learned single Judge, and relying upon the provisions of Order 30, Rule 1, Civil P. C., it was observed by the learned Judge that no right of suit had been given to a firm; that the present suit was brought by a partner in the name of the firm; and that the person suing was, therefore, the partner of the firm and not the firm itself. Another point raised before the learned single Judge was that the Register of Firms had no column for the names of the partners of the firm which is registered and, in the absence of the names of the partners in the Register of Firms, a copy of the said Register, even if produced, could not have proved the fact whether Ram Kumar was a partner of the firm or not. Consequently, the learned Judge observed that there was this obvious difficulty that the law requires that the person suing on behalf of the firm must show that his name is entered in the Register of Firms while the names of partners are not entered at all in the Register of Firms. Accordingly, he referred the whole case to a bench for decision.