SATISH CHANDRA CHAKROBARTY Vs. PNDAS AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule is directed against the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge confirming an order of the Munsif in an application under Paras. 20 and 21 of Schedule 2, Civil P.C., in other words, an application to file an award.

(2.) The circumstances are as follows: In 1934 Satish Chandra Chakrobarty and P.N. Das & Co. submitted a dispute arising out of certain contracts between them to the arbitration of certain persons. In due course an award was made, and it is with regard to this award that the application, to which I have referred, was made to the Munsif. Both the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court have gone into the question whether Section 69, Partnership Act applies to this case. Section 69 (1) provides that: No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this Act shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be or to have been a partner in the firm unless the firm is registered and the person suing is or has been shown in the Register of Firms as a partner in the firm.

(3.) The Courts below considered the question whether Das & Co. who are the respondents to this rule and who are represented by Dr. Mitter, were a joint family carrying on a joint family business or whether the members of that firm formed a partnership under the Partnership Act. This question was decided in favour of the petitioner. Then the question arose whether they were registered which clearly they were not. The third question that arose was whether this was a suit or proceeding within the meaning of Sub-section (3) to Section 69 which I have just read. On this last question, the Judge found in favour of Das & Co., and therefore the award has been filed. The first point argued before us on behalf of the petitioner is whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Section 115, Civil P.C., to revise or otherwise interfere with the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge. A large number of authorities have been quoted and I must confess that it is somewhat difficult to draw a distinct line between them, the real question in all the cases being--what is the meaning of the word jurisdiction ? I propose to say nothing more about the matter for fear of adding confusion to it rather than clarifying it, because in my opinion this case can be decided on an entirely different ground.