CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Mohinder Singh and Another vs Ram Nath and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 16 April 1991 · Citation: (1993) 1 ILR (P&H) 264

HON’BLE JUDGES
G.R. Majithia, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Partnership Act, 1932 — Section 69, 69(2), 69(3)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Regular Second Appeal No. 3251 of 1986
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 340 words

G.R. Majithia, J.—The unsuccessful Defendants have come to this Court in Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court affirming on appeal those of the trial judge decreeing the suit of the Plaintiffs.

2.

The Plaintiff/Respondents filed a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts and also for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant/Appellants from removing or selling the articles belonging to the partnership business. The suit was decreed by the courts below.

3.

The only objection raised in the Regular Second Appeal is that the partnership firm was not a party Defendant to the suit, and that it is not proved that the partnership firm was registered. Indisputably, the parties to the suit are partners of the firm. The constitution of the partnership firm is not denied. The objection that a suit, against an unregistered firm or that the firm having been not made a party to the suit is not maintainable, cannot be sustained for the reason that the partnership is admitted. The partnership firm is a compendious name for the partners constituting it. The partners are parties to the suit. Non-impleading of the firm does not render the suit bad for non-joinder of parties. The suit for dissolution or rendition of accounts is maintainable even against an unregistered firm. Reliance can usefully be made to D.C. Upreti Vs. B.D. Karnatak, , where it was held thus:

In the instant case it is obvious that it was a suit for dissolution and accounts of an unregistered partnership Firm and such a suit is well protected by Sub-section (3)(a) of Section 69 of the Partnership Act. This exception excluded such suit from the operation of the General Rule as laid in Section 69, Sub-section (2) of the aforesaid Act. Under the circumstances the finding that such type of suit is saved by the aforesaid exception and is not barred by Section 69 of the partnership Act is correct.

4.

For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is devoid of any merit and is dismissed.