JUDGMENT 1. This is a defendants' appeal directed against an order of remand passed by the first appellate Court which had set aside the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the Registration of the plaintiff firm under Indian Partnership Act was invalid in law. 2. The ground on which the trial Court's view was based was that although the Indian Partnership Act had been extended to Part B States under the Part B States Extension of taws Act and had consequently been applied to the Madhya Bharat region yet no rules had been framed by the Government of Madhya Bharat under section 71 of the Act prescribing either the fees which ought to accompany documents to be sent to the Registrar of Firm for the firm's registration or the form of statement submitted under section 58 and of the form of its verification till 28-10-1955. The plaintiff firm however was registered on 19-6-1954 when the prescribed fees and form of statement under section 58 did not exist. Its registration consequently was invalid in law and the present suit filed on the strength of such registration on 8-8-1958 was incompetent since the plaintiff firm having been invalidly registered should be taken to be unregistered. The present suit was therefore bad by reason of section 69 of the Partnership Act. The suit was consequently dismissed. 3. The appellate Court on the other hand held that the registration of the plaintiffs firm was not invalid. Its reasoning is as follows ;- "Section 58 is exhaustive itself to indicate the statement required to be submitted. The Register or Firms prescribed in the Rules of 1955 is exactly the same and contains the same details as are given in the section 58 itself. There is no substantial difference Similarly schedule I of the Act gives the maximum fees to be charged. The rules could not prescribe more fees than what Schedule I contain. And if maximum fees have been charged as in the present case in absence of any Rules, the provisions of the Act were deemed to be fully complied with." 4. Mr. Pande appearing for the defendants-appellants contended that the plaintiff firm ought to have been registered subsequent to the coming into force of the rules. And if maximum fees have been charged as in the present case in absence of any Rules, the provisions of the Act were deemed to be fully complied with." 4. Mr. Pande appearing for the defendants-appellants contended that the plaintiff firm ought to have been registered subsequent to the coming into force of the rules. Its prior registration, without a by registration fee and form to be submitted under section 58 having been prescribed, is a nullity. 5. The learned counsel merely relies upon the wording of the provisions contained in sections 58, 59, 69 and 71 of the Indian Partnership Act. According to him, since the statement for the registration of a firm is to be made in a prescribed form and is to be accompanied by a prescribed fee. Where no rules are made by the State Government for the purpose in pursuance of the power under section 71 laying down the form and mentioning the fees subject to the maximum amount laid down in the 1st schedule there could be no valid registration. 6. On the other hand Mr. Sanghi who appeared for the respondents contended that provisions as to Government's power of prescribing fees, when maximum limit of fees is laid down by the legislature itself, and the form of statement to be submitted under section 58 when that section has clearly laid down the essential requirements of that statement, are intended merely for convenient and orderly manner of working out the provision as to registration and as along as the authority empowered to effect registration is duly appointed and the necessary information which the law requires to be supplied to that authority to enable him to effect registration, had been supplied on the basis of which registration has been effected, it could not be said to be invalid marely because fees or form under section 58 have not been prescribed. The provisions as to fees or form can only be directory and not mandatory. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, if the provisions as to registration are substantially complied with and the person seeking registration is not at fault the registration effected by a competent authority and entered in the book maintained for the purpose, such registration ought to be unexceptionable. The learned counsel relied upon Sutherland Statutory Construction page 215 section 2802 and L. Hazarimal Vs. The learned counsel relied upon Sutherland Statutory Construction page 215 section 2802 and L. Hazarimal Vs. L.T. Officer AIR 1961 SC 200 (202), in support of his contention. 7. In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel it will be useful to refer to the material provisions of the Indian Partnership Act. 8. Section 57 provides for the appointment by the Government, Registrar of Firms for the purpose of the Act, and empowers the Government to define the areas of his operation. 9. Section 58 lays down how a firm can be registered. It provides "(i) The registration of a firm may be effected at any time by sending by post or delivering to the Registrar of the area in which any place of business of the firm is situated or proposed to be situated, a statement in the prescribed form and accompanied by the prescribed fee, stating (a) the firm name, (b) the place or principal place of business of the firm, (c) the names of any other places where the firm carries on business, (d) the date when each partner joined the firm, (e) the names in full and permanent addresses of the partners, and (f) the duration of the firm. The statement shall be signed by all the partners, or by their agents specially authorised in this behalf. (2) Each person signing the statement shall also verify it in the manner prescribed. (3) ... 10. Section 59 then provides that when the Registrar is satisfied that the provisions of section 58 have been duly complied with, he shall record an entry of statement in a register called the Register of Firms and shall file the statement. 11. Section 69 (1) and (2) lay down:- "(1) 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. (2) No suit to enforce a right arising from It contract shall be instituted to any Court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm." 12. Section 71 confers rule making power upon the State Government to make rules prescribing fees which shall accompany documents sent to the Registrar of Firm or which shall be payable for the inspection of documents in the custody of the Registrar or for copies from the Register of Firms maximum limit of such fees being laid down in Schedule I of the Act itself. It further empowers the State Government to make rules prescribing the form of state meat to be submitted under section 58 and of verification thereof, the form of the Register of Firms etc. including rules generally to carry out the purposes of the Act. 13. It will be clear from section 58 of the Act that a registration is meant to have a public record of the name of the firm, its place or places of business, names and permanent addresses of its partners together with the date when each of them joined and its duration. Such a public record is open for inspection by any person who can obtain copies of any entries or portions thereof on payment of prescribed fees. This enables those who want to deal with a firm to ascertain its position and trade-worthyness, because the information derived from the Register and documents on the basis of which the entries in the Register are made are conclusive against those who have signed the same. With a view to compel a firm or its partners to comply with the provisions as to registration and maintenance of public record for facility of trade and general convenience drastic provisions under section 69 (1) and (2) are made. 14. Now having regard to the object thus explained behind the provisions as to registration we have to see whether framing of the rules prescribing the form and the fee is indispensible and a condition precedent to the validity of registration. There is no specific provision that in case the form and the fee is not prescribed registration cannot be effected and we have to find whether this would be a necessary result. 15. There is no specific provision that in case the form and the fee is not prescribed registration cannot be effected and we have to find whether this would be a necessary result. 15. This will involve consideration as to whether the provisions as to prescribing of fees and form by rules made pursuant to the' rule making power is mandatory or directory. It would appear to be mandatory if unless that is done the very object of the provision as to registration will be frustrated or will not be fulfilled. On the other hand if the provision as to making of rules to prescribe form and fees is meant either for convenient and orderly working out of the provision or for a collateral purpose and no inherent defect could remain in the registration effected without such form' and fees leading to the frustration of the object behind registration then the provision can only be taken to the directory. In the latter case where there is substantial compliance with the necessary requirement apart from convenience, orderliness or fiscal loss to the Government and is made by a person having due authority it will not be bad. As regards the provision as to fees, the same is intended more or less for fiscal purposes with a view to provide for public revenue. If the Government, which is empowered to provide for a rule enabling it to require payment of certain fees for its duty to effect registration, has not made any such rule it certainly cannot recover the fees and the recovery made without any rule may be bad in law but where the authority empowered to register does register how could the registration be rendered invalid. If no rule is made empowering a Court to recover Court fees, the Court cannot recover but how could the decree given by a Court without payment of fees in such a situation be rendered bad. The recovery of fees in the latter case is ancillary to the main duty of the Court to dispense justice and is not its very foundation. So also where no form is prescribed the authority cannot refuse to register in accordance with a particular form provided the essential requirements for registration are fulfilled. The recovery of fees in the latter case is ancillary to the main duty of the Court to dispense justice and is not its very foundation. So also where no form is prescribed the authority cannot refuse to register in accordance with a particular form provided the essential requirements for registration are fulfilled. It will be anomalous to hold that where a firm or a partner required to get the firm registered provides the necessary information as required under section 58 and pays maximum fees chargeable for such registration and where the authority duly empowered to register on the basis of such information effects registration and makes entries in a register which is sufficient for the purpose, the registration is still invalid because it is possible that with rules made he would have been required to payless fees or with the form prescribed his statement would have to conform to a given pattern leading to facility of working out the provision and saving of certain time and labour of the authority concerned. He has done everything substantially what the law requires of him. The Authority has done substantially what the law requires of it do to. In such a situation we ought to hold, unless a specific provisions does not permit us to do so, that the provisions as to form and fees are merely directory and not mandatory. 16. In Montreal Street Railway Company Vs. Normadin 1917 Appeal Cases 170, it was observed : "The question whether provisions in a statute are directory or imperative has very frequently arisen in this country, but it has been said that no general rule can be laid down, and that in every case the object of the statute must be looked at." 17. This is also the view taken in L. Hazari Mal Vs. I.T. Officer AIR 1961 SC 200 (202). 18. In Sutherland Statutory Construction at page 215 section 2802 it is stated : "Generally those directions which are not of the essence of the thing to be done, but which are given with a view merely to the proper, orderly and prompt conduct of the business, and by the failure to obey no prejudice will occur to those whose rights are protected by the statute, are not commonly considered mandatory. Likewise, if the ect is performed but not in the time or in the precise manner directed by the statute, the provision will not be considered mandatory if the purpose of the statute has been substantially complied with and no substantial rights have been jeopardized." 19. Having regard to the principle thus stated it is clear beyond doubt that the provision as to making rules by the Government to indicate the fee chargeable for registration subject to the maximum laid down by the schedule attached to the Indian Partnership Act and that of making rules regarding form of statement to be submitted under section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act cannot be said to be mandatory so that in the absence of any such rule any registration effected ought to be held to be invalid The provision as to the making of the rules, being for the purpose of convenient and orderly conduct of the business material for the purpose of the Act and for answering a fiscal purpose suitable to the conditions prevailing in a particular state will have to be taken to be directory only and where there is substantial compliance and fulfilment of the object of the Act the action cannot be said to be invalid. I am, therefore inclined to hold that the Court below was right is holding that the plaintiff firm was duly registered and its registration was not invalid in law. 20. The appeal, therefore, is without force and is dismissed with costs,