PRAKASH JAIN Vs. VIJAY SAXENA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this civil revision preferred under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') challenge is to the order dated 23-12-99 passed in C. S. No. 236-A/99 by the IIIrd Civil Judge, Class-II, Bhopal.

(2.) THE facts as have been undraped are that the non- applicant No. 1 initiated the aforesaid civil litigation for rendition of accounts, injunction and appointment of receiver on the ground that the firm had already been dissolved as per the terms and conditions of the Partnership deed. After the defendants/ applicants entered contest, they moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code to reject the plaint on the ground as the firm is not registered a suit cannot be instituted as envisaged under Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). The learned Trial Judge on consideration of the material on record negatived the prayer of the applicants/ defendants. The said order is cause of grievance of the present revisionists.

(3.) ASSAILING the aforesaid order it is contended by Mr. Prashant Jaiswal that the reasonings ascribed by the learned Trial Judge are unsound in as much as the embargo as stipulated under Section 69 (3) in respect of the unregistered firm would apply in full force. It is his further submission that the exception carved out under Section 69 (3) (a) is not applicable to the present case as the firm in question has not yet been dissolved and is in continuance.