(1.) THE only question involved in this second appeal is whether a suit by all the proprietors of a firm for the recovery of a debt due to the firm is hit by Section 69(2), Partnership Act and is, therefore, not competent if the firm was not duly registered under the Act. The Plaintiffs who are respondents in this appeal brought a suit for the recovery of Rs. 600/ - on the basis of a bond alleging that they were members of a joint Hindu family and owners of the firm in whose favour Din Dayal father of the defendant -Appellants executed the bond. The defendants denied the execution of the bond and 'inter alia' pleaded that since the firm was a partnership firm which had not been duly registered under the Partnership Act, the suit was not maintainable. The trial Sub -Judge as well as the District Judge found the execution of the bond to be proved, but they differed in their finding as regards the nature of the firm. The trial Court held that it was a partnership firm and since it had not been registered it dismissed the suit as barred by Section 69(2), Partnership Act. The District Judge on appeal found in favour of the Plaintiff that the firm was a joint Hindu family firm and consequently decreed the suit. The defendants came in second appeal to this Court and the appeal was originally heard in Single Bench by my learned brother Hon'ble the Chief Justice who on a consideration of the evidence on record arrived at the conclusion that the trial Sub -Judge was right in holding that the firm was a partnership firm.
(2.) IN Clause (1) of the plaint it was stated that the Plaintiffs were members of joint Hindu family firm and owners of the firm 'Radha Kishan Shadi Ram' Clause (3) which narrated, the cause of action recited that the defendants on different occasions purchased cloth from 'the Plaintiff firm' and on accounts having been taken Din Dayal on 29 -5 -1998 executed a bond for Rs. 600 in favour of 'the Plaintiff firm'. The plaint was signed and verified by Plaintiffs describing themselves as the proprietors of the firm Radha Kishan Shadi Ram. The contents of the plaint leave no doubt that the suit was brought in the interests and for the benefit of the firm to realise the debt which was due to the firm. As regards the form it is correct, that the suit was not in the name of the firm as provided by Order 30, Rule 1, Civil P.C. Under this rule two or more persons claiming as partners may sue in the name of the firm of which such persons were partners at the time of the accruing of the cause of action, but this is only an enabling provision and merely provides an alternative and abbreviated mode of describing the parties to a suit by the firm. This, however, is not the only form in which a suit on behalf of a firm can be brought. All the proprietors of a firm can institute a suit in their individual names to enforce a contract in favour of the firm. That may not strictly be a suit by the firm in the form provided by Order 30, Rule 1, Civil P.C. but it shall still undoubtedly be a suit for the benefit and interests of the firm and consequently a suit on behalf of the firm. The present suit falls under that category and is, therefore, hit by Sub -section (2) of Section 69, Partnership Act which not only applies to suits by a firm but also to those which are brought on behalf of a firm.
(3.) IN the result this appeal is accepted, the decree of the District Judge set aside and that of the trial Court dismissing the suit restored. It is, however, directed that the parties shall bear their own costs throughout.