GOVINDMAL GIANCHAND Vs. KUNJ BIHARILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter has been placed on board for speaking to the minutes of a decree under the following circumstances.

(2.) THE plaintiffs sued as a firm. Defendants. Nos. 1 and 2 had given instructions on behalf of defendant No. 3 for raising a certain loan and the claim in suit arose out of such instructions. When the suit reached hearing before me on 25-11-1952, defendant No. 2 appeared in person and admitted the claim. He stated that he had paid Rs. 44,000 already and had agreed to compromise the rest of the claim for Rs. 20,000 payable in. four instalments in terms signed by him and the-plaintiffs. The consent terms were put in and have been marked Ex. A. No decree was, however, passed on that day against defendant No. 2 because defendant No. 1 contested the suit, and I thought it advisable that a decree should be passed when the whole suit had been disposed of. Thereafter the suit was contested by the other defendants and adjourned from time to time. In the course of the evidence it transpired that the plaintiffs were not a registered firm, and thereupon, an issue was raised and tried as to whether the plaintiffs were a duly registered firm at the date-of the suit. On 13-1-1953, I held that the plaintiffs were not a duly registered firm, and I therefore' dismissed the suit with costs. When this order was passed by me on 13-1-1953, my attention was not drawn to the consent terms, as between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 which, had been recorded on 25-11-1952, nor was any application made for a decree In terms of the consent.

(3.) MR. Laud for the plaintiffs now applies for a decree against defendant No. 2 in terms of consent between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 which already have been recorded. The question is whether, having regard to the fact that the Court has now held that the plaintiffs are not a duly registered firm, I can proceed to pass a consent decree.