JUDGMENT : 1. Plaintiff firm viz. The General Iron and Hardware Stores of Khargone filed a suit against defendants Mangoo s/o Pritamlal, Dagoobai w/o Pritamlal and Jagannath s/o Narayan for the recovery of Rs. 2,000/- as the price of goods supplied to the defendants worth Rs. 1,494/- and Rs. 506/4/6 as interest after giving up a claim for As. 4-6 on 20-3-1952. 2. The defendant in his written statement 'inter alia' contended that the plaintiff firm being unregistered partnership firm the present suit was incompetent. 3. Issue No. 2 bearing on this question was treated by the trial court as preliminary issue. On hearing arguments of both sides on this question the trial court held that the plaintiff firm was a partnership concern and its registration was indispensible under the Madhya Bharat Partnership Act. It, therefore, relying upon the decision reported in 'Nand Kishore v. Firm Maheswari Mills, Morona', AIR 1953 Madh B 42 (A), dismissed the plaintiff's suit. 4. Plaintiff preferred appeal against this decision and the appellate court set aside the decision holding that in as much as claim in suit was in respect of a claim arising prior to the commencement of the Act it was saved by S. 73 of the Act. He therefore, remanded the case for trial on merits. The present appeal is directed against that order of remand. 5. It is clear that the suit was instituted on 20-3-1952. The claim related to items ranging from 7-5-1949 to 9-11-1950. Madhya Bharat Partnership Act came into force on 7-11-1949. Prior to that there was Indore Partnership Act in force. Both the Madhya Bharat Act and the Indore Act contained provisions similar to S. 69, Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Cause of action, therefore, in respect of some of the items arose when Indore Act was in force and the rest when Madhya Bharat Act was in force. Suit was filed after the Indian Partnership Act had come into force. 6. The right to recover dues of the plaintiff arose prior to the commencement of Indian Partnership Act, 1932 in Madhya Bharat. The present suit is a legal proceeding in respect of such a right. 7. Suit was filed after the Indian Partnership Act had come into force. 6. The right to recover dues of the plaintiff arose prior to the commencement of Indian Partnership Act, 1932 in Madhya Bharat. The present suit is a legal proceeding in respect of such a right. 7. Under S. 6 Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951 by which the Act aforesaid was extended to Madhya Bharat it is provided as follows : "If immediately before the appointed day, there is in force in any Part B State any law corresponding to any of the Acts or Ordinances now extended to that State, that law shall, save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act, stand repealed; Provided that the repeal shall not affect : (a) the previous operation of any law so repealed or anything duly done or suffered there-under, or (b) any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any law so repealed, or (c) any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any law so repealed, or (d) any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; and any such investigation legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if this Act had not been passed; Provided further that, subject to the preceding provision, anything done or any action taken (including any appointment or delegation made, notification, order instruction or direction issued, rule regulation, form bye-law or scheme framed, certificate obtained, patent permit or licence granted or registration effected) under any such law shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provision of the Act or Ordinance as now extended to that State, and shall continue to be in force accordingly, unless and until superseded by anything done or any action taken under the said Act or Ordinance." 8. It seems, therefore, clear to me from the proviso that any legal proceeding in respect of any right already accrued or an obligation or liability already incurred will have to be instituted as if this Act had not been passed. 9. It seems, therefore, clear to me from the proviso that any legal proceeding in respect of any right already accrued or an obligation or liability already incurred will have to be instituted as if this Act had not been passed. 9. Thus the new Act has no application either to rights and obligations or liabilities already incurred under the repealed Act or to the legal proceedings for enforcement of such rights, obligations or liabilities. Such proceedings are to be instituted as if the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 had not been passed. 10. We will, therefore, have to ignore the fact that there is in force the Indian Partnership Act which repealed the pre-existing Madhya Bharat Partnership Act. 11. It, therefore, follows that in so far as items subsequent to 7-11-1949 are concerned Madhya Bharat Act will apply. And inasmuch as under that Act also a provision similar to S. 74, Indian Partnership Act exists and further the Madhya Bharat Act repeals Holkar State Partnership Act which was in force prior to 7-11-1949, therefore, to those items which had been advanced prior to 7-11-1949 the Holkar State Partnership Act will apply. 12. That Act also contained a provision similar to S. 69(2), Indian Partnership Act and a suit in respect of rights which had accrued prior to the repeal of that Act and while that Act was in force would be incompetent if that right arose out of contract with a firm and the firm is seeking to enforce a right with respect to that contract provided other conditions are fulfilled. 13. Now as regards the items subsequent to 7-11-1949 since Madhya Bharat Partnership Act applies we will have to see whether there was an effectual and lawful machinery set up for registration of the firms. It was held in 'Kanhaiyalal v. Gordhandas', Madh B LJ 1954 HCR 1703 (B) by Dixit J. that as there was no notification as contemplated by S. 56, Madhya Bharat Partnership Act the whole Chapter had not come into force and the appointment of the Registrar made on 17-11-1949 was invalid. The provisions of S. 56 are peculiar to Madhya Bharat Act and are not in line with the corresponding Section either of Indore Act or Indian Partnership Act, IX of 1932. 14. The provisions of S. 56 are peculiar to Madhya Bharat Act and are not in line with the corresponding Section either of Indore Act or Indian Partnership Act, IX of 1932. 14. Section 56, Madhya Bharat Partnership Act is as follows : "The provisions of this Chapter shall not come into force until the Government published a notification to this effect in the Government Gazette". 15. Mr. Sanghi who appears for the appellant was unable to point out to me any notification issued by the Madhya Bharat Government under S. 56 of the Act. In fact he frankly conceded that the absence of notification made Chap. 7, Madhya Bharat Partnership Act practically non-existent and so S. 69(2). 16. As regards the items prior to 7-11-1949 although Indore Act was applicable yet since after 7-11-1949 there was no effective machinery for registration of firms. The non-registration under that Act cannot affect the plaintiff. The registrar appointed under the Indore Act ceased to act. Although on 17-11-1949 Registrar was appointed under the Madhya Bharat Act his appointment was invalid as discussed above. 17. Plaintiff, therefore, cannot be non-suited on the ground that the firm was not registered under the Partnership Act in force. For these reasons there is no force in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.