J. B. MEHTA, B. G. THAKOR, J. ( 1 ) THESE two cross appeals raise an interesting question as to the interpretation of the two mandatory conditions laid down in sec. 69 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act 1932 hereinafter referred to as the Act in the context of a reconstituted firm by addition of a now partner and when the cause of action had accrued after such reconstitution. First Appeal No. 769/1960 is filed by the original defendant-company while First Appeal No. 1029/60 is filed by the original plaintifl-firm. ( 2 ) THE short facts which have given rise to these two appeals are as under :the plaintiff-firm is a partnership firm having firms namo Messrs. Mohatta Brothers which carried on the business of managing agency of the dependent-company namely Bharat Suryoday Mills Company Limited hereinafter referred to as the company. The plaintiff-firm carried on the said business of the managing agency upto 4th September 1950. Shri Chaturbhujdas had given a scheme of management Ex 168 on behalf of Messrs. Chaturbhujdas Kharawala Mohatta and Company hereinafter referred to as the new managing agents on 31st July 1950. On 1st August 1950 a notice was issued by the secretary for sanctioning the said scheme in the companys general meeting to be held on 4th September 1950. The company by the resolution of the general meeting of its shareholders approved the said scheme on 4th September 1950. Under the said scheme partners of this plaintiff-firm which worked as the old managing agents had their resignations accepted by the company and the new managing agents were appointed with effect from 4th September 1950 as the companys secretaries treasurers and agents in place of the plaintiff-firm. The matarial terms of the said scheme Ex. 168 provided as under:- under clause 5 before the scheme was sanctioned by the company the existing directors had to submit to the company and get the balance-sheet and the profit and loss accounts for the period ending 1949 passed by the company and they had also to give a pro-forma balance sheet upto 31 July 1950 duly audited by the companys auditors. It was mentioned that the said scheme was given under the belief that the machinery as per the list supplied by the old managing agents was existing at that time and also under the belief that the company had no liability or debt whatever beyond the amount of Rs. 4 77 850 due upto date to the old managing agents and their friends and relatives and of which a list was given. The next clause 6 provided that whatever amount was lying with the company to the credit of the old managing agents and their friends and relative as on 30th July 1950 and which according to the say of the old managing agents was about Rs. 4 77 850 was to be kept at the credit of the old managing agents viz. the plaintiff-firm and no interest was to be paid thereon from 1st August 1950 and that no interest was to be taken on the said amounts for a period of five years from the date of the commencement of the business of the company in pursuance of the sanction of the scheme Ex. 168 and that the said deposits were not to be withdrawn for d period of 10 years but they were to be kept in the company with interest at 6% subject to the companys option of returning the amount earlier if it so desired. The next clause 7 which is material provided that the company owed to the Punjab National Bank a sum of Rs 3 46 466 and there was an outstanding demand with the company in respect of the payment of bonus of the employees for the year 1949. It was the say of the old managing agents that both these liabilities of the company could be discharged from the amount realised by sale of the stores etc. It was the say of the old managing agents that both these liabilities of the company could be discharged from the amount realised by sale of the stores etc. goods lying with the company of which a list had been given to the new managing agents by the old managing agents as also from excess profit deposits and income-lax advance payment amounts If in so paying the amount to the bank and in discharging the liability of bonus this liability could not be fully discharged and the company would have to bear any liability in that connection the same liability was undertaken to be discharged by the old managing agents It was thereafter provided in the said clause that if after fulfilling all the liabilities as mentioned in that clause there was any surplus the same should be treated as assets of the company and half of the said amount shall be given over towards repayment of the aforesaid amount lying with the company to the credit of the old managing agents their friends and relations provided however that if after payment of the dues to the bank from the sale proceeds of the stores etc. there was no sufficient surplus and the bonus amount was to be paid earlier than the receipt of excess profit tax deposits and the income- tax advance payment the same shall be first paid by the old managing agents. Clause 13 provided that till the scheme was sanctioned liability towards municipal tax income-tax sales-tax rent or other liability whatever which might be existing or which might accrue thereafter would be discharged by the old managing agents and if the company had to pay the same the same amount would be repaid by the old managing agents. ( 3 ) IT was the plaintiffs case that the liability of the Punjab National Bank was fully discharged and as no bonus was held to be payable by the Industrial Court for the year 1949 to the employees and as there was surplus left after discharging the liability of the Punjab National Bank from earmarked assets consisting of excess profit tax deposits income-tax advance amount and the amounts realised from the sale of the stores etc. it was entitled by reason of clause 7 to a repayment of half the surplus towards the deposit amounts which were credited in pursuance to the scheme Ex. it was entitled by reason of clause 7 to a repayment of half the surplus towards the deposit amounts which were credited in pursuance to the scheme Ex. 168 to the plaintiffs account. The plaintiff therefore claimed a decree against the defendant-company for accounts of the surplus and for a decree for the amount due as per the said terms after talking accounts with 9% interest under the same scheme and under general law. The plaintiff-firm also claimed that it was entitled to a deduction while taking accounts for the various expenses which it had incurred on behalf of the defendant-company for realisation of those three earmarked assets by keeping staff by fighting litigation and which we inextricably connected with those three earmarked assets. A suit was filed on 16th December 1954 in the firm name of Messrs Mohatta Brothers carrying on business at Shri Phirojshah Mehta Road Fort Bombay and the plaint was signed and verified by one partner Shri Shiv Ratan G. Mohatta. The defendant company in its written statement at Ex. 12 contended that the plaintiff-firm could not maintain this suit as the constitution of the old firm of Mohatta Brothers Ahmedabad which acted as the managing agents of the company had been changed on or about 24th October 1949 and from the date the said firm of Mohatta Brothers which acted as Managing agents of the company consisted of six persons including No. 6 Satyavatidevi Mohatta. The said newly constituted firm of Messrs Mohatta Brothers having not been registered and as the cause of action had accrued in favour of that firm the present suit was not maintainable. The defendant also contended that the suit was bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties namely the relations and friends of M/s. Mohatta Brothers to whom the alleged deposits belonged. It was also contended that the suit was barred by limitation and also was in any event premature. The defendant also denied the liability to pay any amount to the plaintiff or that the aforesaid deductions claimed by the plaintiff-firm could be legally claimed. On the other hand the defendant company claimed deductions of various items mentioned in para 13 of the written statement as those liabilities had not been discharged by the old managing agents. It was the case of the defendant that on a true and proper interpretation of the scheme Ex. On the other hand the defendant company claimed deductions of various items mentioned in para 13 of the written statement as those liabilities had not been discharged by the old managing agents. It was the case of the defendant that on a true and proper interpretation of the scheme Ex. 168 these were conditions precedent and unless the plaintiff-firm discharged all its liabilities which had accrued due they could not make any such claim for accounts as provided in clause 7 of the scheme. In fact the accountability was even disputed. The trial Court held that the plaintiff firm was entitled to file a suit. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the new partnership deed Ex. 116 by which Satyavatidevi Mohatta was added as a partner was not acted upon and therefore there was no bar to the present suit under sec. 69 (2) of the Act. The trial Court also held that there was no bar of non-joinder or limitation and such a suit for accounts could be filed as it was for an unascertained amount which could only be determined after taking accounts of the earmarked assets and liabilities mentioned in clause 7 of Ex. 168. The trial Court also held that the suit was not premature as the liability had accrued. The trial Court also held that the plaintiff firm was not entitled to the deductions claimed under sec. 70 of the Contract Act as it was bound to spend such amount even in its own interests. As regards the deductions claimed by the defendant-company the trial Court held that it was entitled to deduct the amounts shown in sub-clause (S) of para 13 of the written statement as these amounts were wrongly withdrawn by the plaintiff-firm. Even though it had been agreed that no amount would be withdrawn from the aforesaid deposited amount the trial Court found that the amount of Rs. 13 59 was wrongly withdrawn from the total actual deposit of Rs. 4 57 723 13. 9 on the basis of the surplus arrived it decreed the plaintiffs suit against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 13 59 was wrongly withdrawn from the total actual deposit of Rs. 4 57 723 13. 9 on the basis of the surplus arrived it decreed the plaintiffs suit against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 77 286 with future interest at 6 from 1st January 1956 The defendant company has therefore filed First Appeal No. 769/1960 against the said decree while the plaintiff-firm has filed cross-appeal No. 1029/60 for the amounts disallowed and has restricted the plaintiffs claim only to the amount of Rs. 51 764 as mentioned in the explanatory statement annexed to the memo of appeal. As both these appeals arise out of the same order and raise common questions of law and facts they are disposed of by this common order. ( 4 ) MR. Gandhi has raised the following points in his appeal:- (1) The plaintiff-firm was not entitled to file a suit as the plaintiff firm was differently constituted from the firm of Mohatta Brothers as on 31 and in any event as the minor Shashikumar had become major in 1953 and had become a partner of the plaintiff-firm Mohatta Brothers Ahmedabad and as even the name of Satyavatidevi who was the party suing did not appear in the entry in the register the present suit was barred under sec. 69 (2) of the Act. (2) That the friends and relations of Mohatta Brothers having not been joined the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. (3) That there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff-firm and the defendant-company and therefore for enforcing a contract with the new managing agents who were not even parties to the present suit no such suit was maintainable against the company. (4) That the suit for accounts was not legally competent. (5) That the plaintiff was not entitled to claim any surplus under clause 7 of the scheme as it had committed a breach of the essential terms of the scheme and had not discharged various liabilities which it should have first discharged before making this claim. (6) That the defendant company was entitled to get credit of the various amounts mentioned in para 12 if any account was to be made up while the plaintiff-firm was not entitled to any credit as claimed towards the various expenses. (6) That the defendant company was entitled to get credit of the various amounts mentioned in para 12 if any account was to be made up while the plaintiff-firm was not entitled to any credit as claimed towards the various expenses. (7) That there was no surplus whatsoever from which such decree could be passed in favour of the plaintiff. ( 5 ) MR. Nanavati in the other appeal had claimed the amounts disallowed as per the explanatory statement in his appeal. ( 6 ) BEFORE going into the merits of these cross appeals the first point which we should consider at the very outset and which goes to the root would be as regards the bar of sec. 69 (2) to the present suit by the plaintiff-firm on the ground that the two mandatory conditions in sec. 69 of the Act were not fulfilled. Before considering sec. 69 (2) it would be proper at the outset to consider the meaning of the term firm and the nature of a suit by a firm or in the name of a firm. Sec. 4 of the Act defines partnership. It is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all. Persons who have entered into partnership with one another are called individually partners and collectively a firm and the name under which their business is carried on is called the firm name. Thus a firm has no legal entity and it is a collective term for the partners who have entered into a partnership with one another. Order 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 hereinafter referred to as the Code deals with suits by or against firms and persons carrying on business in names other then their own. Thus a firm has no legal entity and it is a collective term for the partners who have entered into a partnership with one another. Order 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 hereinafter referred to as the Code deals with suits by or against firms and persons carrying on business in names other then their own. Order 30 Rule 1 (1) provided that any two or more persons claiming or being liable as partners and carrying on business in India may sue or be sued in the name of the firm if any of which such persons were partners at the time of the accruing of the cause of action and any party to a suit may in such case apply to the Court for a statement of the names and addresses of the persons who were at the time of the accruing of the cause of action partners in such firm to be furnished and verified in such manner as the Court may direct Under Order 30 Rule 1 (2) where persons sue or are sued as Partners in the name of their firm under sub-rule (1) it shall in the case of any pleading or other document required by or under this Code to be signed verified or certified by the plaintiff or the defendant be sufficient if such pleading or other document is signed verified or certified by any one of such persons. The expression such persons will mean persons who were partners at the time of accruing of the cause of action Order 30 Rule 2 (1) provides that where a suit is instituted by partners in the name of their firm the plaintiffs or their pleader shall on demand in writing by or on behalf of any defendant forthwith declare in writing the names and places of residence of all the persons constituting the firm on whose behalf the suit is instituted. Rule 2 sub-clause (2) provides that where the plaintiffs or their pleader fail to comply with any demand made under sub-rule (1) all proceedings in the suit may upon an application for that purpose be stayed upon such terms as the Court may direct. Rule 2 sub-clause (2) provides that where the plaintiffs or their pleader fail to comply with any demand made under sub-rule (1) all proceedings in the suit may upon an application for that purpose be stayed upon such terms as the Court may direct. Sub-rule (2) then provides that where the names of the partners are declared in the manner referred to in sub-rule (1) the suit shall proceed in the same manner and the same consequences in all respects shall follow as if they had been named as plaintiffs in the plaint provided that all the proceedings shall nevertheless continue in the name of the firm. From these provisions of Order 30 it is clear that it unables the suit to be brought by the partners or against the partners in the name of their firm. A suit brought in the firm name is really one by persons who were partners at the time of accrual of the cause of action. The procedure for a suit in the name of the firm is that in the cause title as per the draft in Appendix 4 A. B. a firm carrying of business in partnership at- shall be mentioned and the plaint shall be signed and verified by any one of such persons who was a partner at the time of the accruing of the cause of action. The other partners need not at all be mentioned. Sub-rule 2 (2) requires a disclosure on demand of partners names and places of residence in such suits instituted by partners in the name of the firm and the suit has to be stayed until its demand is complied with by disclosing all the persons constituting the firm and on whose behalf the suit is instituted by such partners in the name of the firm. Once information is disclosed a suit proceeds in the same manner and with same consequences in all respects as if all those partners constituting the firm on whose behalf the suit is instituted were named plaintiffs in the plaint This is only an enabling provision and the partners can always individually file a suit. If however they resort to this alternative procedure under Order 30 the suit proceeds all throughout in the name of the firm But still it remains for all purposes and all consequences follow as if the suit was instituted by all the named plain. If however they resort to this alternative procedure under Order 30 the suit proceeds all throughout in the name of the firm But still it remains for all purposes and all consequences follow as if the suit was instituted by all the named plain. tiffs. That is why Rule 1 and Rule 2 in terms mention the suit in the name of the firm as a suit by the partners in the name of the firm. Therefore even though the cause title mentions the firm A B. as suing and even though name of the firm is used for bringing a suit what is styled as a suit by the firm is really a suit instituted by all the partners who constituted the firm at the time of the cause of action and on whose behalf the suit is instituted and whose names have to be furnished on demand and who are thereafter treated as named plaintiffs. In Purushottam and Co. v. Manilal and Sons A. I. R. 1961 S. C. 325 at page 328 Their lordships of the Supreme Court considered the definition of the term firm in sec. 4 of the Act and observed that it was clear from the provisions of the Act that the word firm or the `firm name was merely a compendious description of all the partners collectively. It followed therefore that where a suit was filed in the name of a firm it was still a suit by all the partners of the firm unless it was proved that all the partners had not authorised the suit. A firm is not a legal entity in the sense of a company and when a suit is not filed in the name of the firm it was in reality a suit by all the partners of the firm. At page 329 also The Lordships observed that the provisions of Rule 2 show that although the suit was filed in the name of the firm a disclosure had to be made on demand in writing or on behalf of any defendant of names and places of residence of all the persons constituting the firm on whose behalf the suit was instituted. The provisions of Rule 2 would indicate that although the suit was filed in the name of the firm it was none the less a suit by all the partners of the firm because if a disclosure of the names of the partners was asked for by any dependent on such disclosure the suit must proceed as if the partners had been named as plaintiffs in the suit even though the proceedings would nevertheless be continued in the name of the firm. It was therefore clear that the provisions of Order 30 Rule I and 2 were enabling provision to permit several persons who were doing business as partners to sue or be sued in the name of the firm. Their Lordships observed that Rule 2 would not have been in the form it was if the suit instituted in the name of the firm was not regarded as in fact a suit by the partners of the firm. Their Lordships again considered the question in Mandalse Devi v. M. Ramnarain Private Ltd. A. I. R. 1965 S. C. 1718 at 1720. Their Lordships observed that for the sake of convenience O. 30 of the Code permits a firm to sue or be sued in the firm name as if it were a corporate body. Their Lordships however observed that the legal fiction must not be carried too far. For some purposes the law has extended a limited personality to a firm. See Bhagwati Morarji Goculdas v. Alembic Works Co. Ltd. A. I. R. 1948 P. C. 100 but the firm is not a legal entity. (See Purushottam Umedbhai and Co. M/s Manilal and Sons A. I. R. 1961 S. C. 325 at p. 330 Lindley on Partnership 12 edition pp. 27-28 ). The persons who are individually called partners are collectively called a firm and the name under which their business is carried on is called the firm name. (See sec. 4 of the Indian Partnership Act 1932 Order 30 Rule 1 of the Code enables two or more persons claiming or being liable as partners and carrying on business in India to sue or be sued in the name of the firm of which they were partners at the time of the accrual of the cause of action. Rule 1 shows that individual partners sue or are sued in their collective firm name. Rule 1 shows that individual partners sue or are sued in their collective firm name. Rule 2 provides that on disclosure of the names of partners of the plaintiff firm the suit proceeds as if they are named as plaintiffs in the plaint. Rule 6 provides that the persons sued in the firm name must appear individually in their own names. A suit by or in the name of a firm is thus really a suit by or in the name of all its partners. (See Rodriguez v. Speyer Brothers 1919 A. C. 59 and A. I. R. 1961 S. C. 325 at pages 323 329 330 So also a suit against the firm is really a suit against all the partners of the firm. Their Lordship quoted 3 passage of Lindley L. J. in Western National Bank of City New York v. Perez Trisanna and Co. 1891 1 Q. B. 304 at page 314 as under:-WHEN a firms name is used it is only a convenient method of denoting these persons who compose the firm at the time when that name is used and a plaintiff who sues partners in the name of their firm in truth sue them individually just as much as if be had set out all their names The decree passed in the suit though in form against the firm is in effect a decree against all the partners After laying down this legal position Their Lordships applied that ratio to the facts of that case. In that case the firm of Jagatsons International Corporation was sued. As the suit was brought against that firm Their Lordships held that the Maharaja of Sirmur and other partners were sued as if the plaint had set out their names and decree passed in the suit was in reality a decree against all the partners of the firm including the Maharaja of Sirmur. Now the Maharaja of Sirmur was the Ruler of a former Indian State and sec. 86 read with sec. 87b of the Code barred the institution of a suit against him except with the consent of the Central Government No such consent was given to the institution of the suit against the Maharaja of Sirmur. In the absence of the requisite consent of the Central Government a suit which was in reality though not in form against the Maharaja of Sirmur. was barred by sec. In the absence of the requisite consent of the Central Government a suit which was in reality though not in form against the Maharaja of Sirmur. was barred by sec. 86 and sec. 87b (See Gaekwar Baroda State Railway v. Hafiz Habib Ali A. I. R. 1938 P. C. 165 at p. 169 ). Consequently the suit so far as it was one against the Maharaja of Sirmur was incompetent and the decree against the firm in so far as it was a decree against him was a nullity. From this subsequent decision by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court it appears to be a settled position of law that such suits by or against a firm under O. 30 are in reality suits by partners or against the partners at the time when cause of action accrued. There is no question of a deemed fiction but in reality the suit is by all the partners or against all the partners even though firm name is used as a convenient method for denoting those persons who compose the firm at the time when the cause of action accrued. In such cases even though the plaint in the cause title mentions name of the firm as the Plaintiff the suit is really by all the partners individually just as much as if they had all of them set out their names in the plaint. Even when considering the bar which would be attracted to such a suit by reason of an independent statutory provision like sec. 86 read with sec. 87b of the Code Their Lordships held that a suit though in form against a firm was in reality a suit against each partner including the Ruler of Sirmur former Indian State and therefore. it was held to be incompetent. On a parity of reasoning we must treat such a suit by firm as really a suit by the partners at the time of the accrual of the cause of action in order to consider whether the bar of sec. 69 (2) of the Act was attracted or not We do not agree with Mr. Nanavati in his contention that O. 30 R. 2 (3) provides only a fiction and that fiction must be limited only in so far as it enables a suit being brought in the name of the firm. 69 (2) of the Act was attracted or not We do not agree with Mr. Nanavati in his contention that O. 30 R. 2 (3) provides only a fiction and that fiction must be limited only in so far as it enables a suit being brought in the name of the firm. We cannot allow our imagination to be boggled down while considering the consequences when the question of the bar to such a suit is to be considered. whether by resorting to sec. 86 read with sec. 87b or under any other statutory provision. Whatever be the form of the suit or its cause title we must treat it in reality as a suit by the partners. The fiction only in reality permits a convenient procedure to be adopted but for all intents and purposes the suit remains a suit by all the partners or against all the partners and on that footing alone the bar to such a suit has to be considered. ( 7 ) NOW we would turn to sec. 69 (2) of the Act which is the relevant section to be interpreted by us Sec. 69 (2) runs as under:-NO suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in 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. Sec. 69 (2) therefore bars a suit against a third party if it is for enforcing a right arising from a contract. The bar equaly applies to suits by the firm as well as to suits on behalf of the firm Two mandatory requirements which must be fulfilled before such a suit can be filed to enforce a contractual right by the firm on behalf of the firm are (1) that the firm must be a registered firm and (2) the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of firm as partners of the firm. As the section creates a bar to the suit the requisite conditions will have to be treated as mandatory conditions. Unless these two conditions are fulfilled there would be a fatal bar to the entire suit and it would be wholly incompetent in a Court of law. As the section creates a bar to the suit the requisite conditions will have to be treated as mandatory conditions. Unless these two conditions are fulfilled there would be a fatal bar to the entire suit and it would be wholly incompetent in a Court of law. A plain literal reading of the section shows that both these conditions are cummulative conditions as they have been joined by the conjunction and and not by the disjunctive or. We would consider in a moment the contention of Mr. Nanavati that the condition is inapplicable by its nature to a suit by a firm. Prima facie on a plain literal reading of sec. 69 (2) both these mandatory conditions must be held to be cummulative conditions and both of them must be complied with to show that a suit to enforce a contractual right by or on behalf of a firm is maintainable against a third party. These two conditions are enacted for protecting a third party who enters into a contract with the firm. If the firm is registered and the partners acting for the firm have their names shown in the Register of firms as partners in the firm the third party would have a complete protection when he enters into such a contract. Looking to the purpose underlying sec. 69 (2) it is obvious that both these conditions must be cummulative conditions If only a firm was registered and thereafter it was reconstituted by introduction of new partners unless the second condition is fulfilled the third party would not have adequate protection as it could not check up whether they were partners of the registered firm when such persons purport to act as partners in the firm while dealing with the third party. Sec. 69 (2) creates a bar not only in cases where the suit is by the firm but also when the suit is on behalf of the film. The suit by the firm can be filed as we have already discussed under 0. 30 R. 1 by bringing it in the name of the firm mentioning the firm in the cause title and the plaint being verified by one of the partners at the time of accrual of the cause of action. The suit by the firm can be filed as we have already discussed under 0. 30 R. 1 by bringing it in the name of the firm mentioning the firm in the cause title and the plaint being verified by one of the partners at the time of accrual of the cause of action. The suit on behalf of the firm can be filed equally by all the partners who are co-promisees and all of whom are under sec. 45 of the Indian Contract 1872 join together in enforcing the promise against a third party promissor. The suit by a firm as we have already discussed is only a procedural provision for the purposes of the form of the suit but in reality even a suit by the firm is a suit by all the individual partners at the time of accrual of the cause of action. Therefore there would be no reason for the Legislature to provide two different conditions when the suit is by a firm or when the suit is by individual partners merely because for the sake of convenience in fling a suit a different procedure was laid down in O. 30 to enable a firm to bring a suit in the firm name. Therefore on a plain literal construction we must hold that in both the cases where the suit is by a firm or on behalf of the firm both of these mandatory conditions must be cummulative conditions. ( 8 ) AS regards the first condition it has to be shown that the firm is registered. A controversy has arisen as to what is the import of the term firm in the context of the first condition. Mr. Trivedi and Mr. Gandhi argued that the term firm must have throughout the Act the same meaning as laid down in sec. 4. i. e. as a collective term to donote partners who have entered into the partnership with one another. It is therefore argued on their behalf that once there is a reconstitution of a firm there is emergence a new firm within the meaning of sec. 4. It must get a different registration and without getting another registration the first requirement of sec. 69 (2) cannot be fulfilled. Mr. Nanavati on the other hand pointed out a number of sections in the Act to show that the expression firm has been loosely used. 4. It must get a different registration and without getting another registration the first requirement of sec. 69 (2) cannot be fulfilled. Mr. Nanavati on the other hand pointed out a number of sections in the Act to show that the expression firm has been loosely used. Sec. 31 (1) provides that subject to a contract between the partners and to the provisions of sec. 30 no person shall be introduced as a partner into a firm without the consent of all the existing partners Sec. 31 (2) provides that subject to the provisions of sec. 30 a person who is introduced as a partner into a firm does not thereby become liable for any act of the firm done before he became a partner. This section clearly contemplates that a person is introduced into a firm and even after his introduction the firm continues. Sec. 32 speaks of retirement of a partner and under sec. 32 (2) notwithstanding the retirement of a partner from a firm he and the partners continue to be liable to third parties for any act done by any of them which would have been an act of the firm if done before the retirement until public notice is given of the retirement. Thus even after the retirement the firm may continue. Sec. 34 deals with insolvency of a partner. Sec. 36 deals with the rights of outgoing partners to carry on competing business with that of the firm. In the next Chapter relating to dissolution of a firm sec. 39 speaks of dissolution of a partnership between all the partners of a firm which under sec. 40 may be with the consent of all the partners or in accordance with the contract between the partners. There may be a compulsory dissolution of a firm under sec. 41 or on the happening of certain contingencies as under sec. 42 or a dissolution by notice of partnership at will under sec. 43 or under sec. 44 by Court. The dissolved firm is wound up. In Chapter VIE of Registration of Firms under sec. 54 an application for registration has to be made to the Registrar of Firms with the prescribed particulars signed by all the partners or their agents and duly verified. Under sec. 59 the Registrar registers the firm in the Register of Firms. Secs. The dissolved firm is wound up. In Chapter VIE of Registration of Firms under sec. 54 an application for registration has to be made to the Registrar of Firms with the prescribed particulars signed by all the partners or their agents and duly verified. Under sec. 59 the Registrar registers the firm in the Register of Firms. Secs. 60 61 and 62 deal with recording of alteration in firm name and principal place of business closing and opening of branches and noting of changes in names and addresses of partners. Sec. 63 which is material for our purpose provides in clause (1) that when a change occurs in the constitution of a registered firm on incoming continuing or outgoing partner and when a registered firm is dissolved dany person who was a partner immediately before the dissolution or the agent of any such partner or person specially authorised in this behalf. may give notice to the Registrar of such change or dissolution specifying the date thereof and the Registrar shall make a record of the notice in the entry relating to the firm in the Register of Firms and shall file the notice along wish the statement relating to the firm filed under sec. 59. Sec. 63 (2) provides that when a minor Who has been admitted to the benefits of partnership in a firm attains majority and elects to become or not to become a partner and the firm is the registered firm he or his agent specially authorised in this behalf may give notice to the Registrar that he has or has not become a partner and the Registrar shall deal with the notice in the manner provided in sub-sec. (1 ). This sec. 63 leaves no doubt whatever that even when there is a change in the constitution or a registered firm by reason of incoming or outgoing partner or where there is dissolution of the firm or when the minor admitted to the benefits of the partnership becomes a major and elects or refuses to be elected as a partner what is necessary for the Registrar to do is to note the change in the constitution of the firm about the fact of dissolution of the firm. It is thus obvious that in the context in which the registration of the firm is contemplated in Chapter VII the registered firm may continue its existence notwithstanding any reconstitution of the partnership firm and even when dissolution has taken place provided the registered firm continues in existence. In that view of the matter so far as sec. 69 (2) is concerned the first condition would only mean that the continuing firm must be a registered firm and it does not require a fresh registration each time that a reconstitution or dissolution of the continuing firm takes place. The firm retains its identity for the purposes of registration and what is required under sec. 63 is notifying the changes in the constitution of the firm or as regards its dissolution. There would however be no fresh entry of registration so long as the same registered firm continues in existence. Therefore we accept the first contention of Mr. Nanavati that even when a firm is reconstituted by introduction of a new partner it would remain the same registered firm and there would be no necessity of a fresh registration if the continuing firm was a registered firm which was registered with the Registrar of Firms by the order under sec. 59 of the Act. ( 9 ) AS regards the second condition the controversy centres round the expression the persons suing as the second condition requires that the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of FIrms as partners in the firm. Mr. Nanavati argues that this second condition in the context of a suit by a firm would be wholly inapplicable or in any event there would be a sufficient compliance with this condition if the partner signing or verifying the plaint under O. 30 R. 1 (2) was shown in the Register of Firms as a partner. We must keep in mind that sec. 69 (2) is not an enabling provision but clearly a disabling provision. It does not by itself create a firm as a specific legal entity nor does not enable the firm to file a suit as a distinct legal entity as in case of a limited company. We must keep in mind that sec. 69 (2) is not an enabling provision but clearly a disabling provision. It does not by itself create a firm as a specific legal entity nor does not enable the firm to file a suit as a distinct legal entity as in case of a limited company. The provision creates a bar to a suit and in that context it uses the expression suit by or on behalf of a firm Therefore for the purpose of finding out the true import of the expression suit by a firm we get no guidance from the Set except to a limited extent as is provided by see. 4. Sec. 4 in terms states that the expression firm is only a collective term for the partners and it does not create any distinct legal entity. The meaning of the expression suit by a firm will have to be therefore found from the provisions of 0. 30 which enable such a suit to be he filed under the Code. That expression has been interpreted by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court to mean that even though in form the suit is by a firm and in the name of the firm in reality it is a suit by all the partners constituting a firm at the time of accural of the cause of action. Therefore the persons suing would obviously be all the partners who constitute the firm at the time of the accrual of the cause of action. There is no question of a fiction here because it is in form a suit by a firm but in substance a suit only by the partners. In view of this settled legal position as regards the import of the expression suit by or on behalf of a firm under O. 30 it would not be open to Mr. Nanavati to make any distinction between the suit by a firm or on behalf of a film on the round that in the former case the suit being by a firm there would be no question of a person suing at all. Nanavati to make any distinction between the suit by a firm or on behalf of a film on the round that in the former case the suit being by a firm there would be no question of a person suing at all. According to the settled legal position if when the suit is filed by a firm it is in reality a suit by all the partners constituting the firm at the lime of the accrual of the cause of action and they being the plaintiffs or the persons suing the names of all these partners who constitute the firm at the time of the cause of action must be shown to be or to have been entered in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm. ( 10 ) MR. Nanavati however argued that for the first condition we have already given a wider meaning to the term firm in the context of sec. 69 (2) by treating the firm as a continuing firm irrespective of the changes in its constitution. If therefore a firm has a continued existence it must be treated as a separate legal entity. In that context Mr. Nanavati argued that in the same sec. 69 (2) when the Legislature uses the expression suit by a firm in contradiction under the words persons suing we should hold that the second condition could not apply when the suit is by the firm which is at least for the purposes of sec. 69 a distinct legal entity and which continues its existence even after the change in the constitution of the firm or even after if a dissolution. There would be some scope for this argument if this sect on 4as an enabling section. As we have already stated the section is a disabling section and it does not permit a suit but it bars a suit. Therefore the expression `suit by or on behalf of a firm only gives the description of the nature of the suit and it does not enable a firm to sue. The suit by a firm could only be brought by recourse to the procedural provision of O. 30 alone and in view of the settled position of law we cannot interpret suit by a firm as in any way different from the suit by the partners themselves. The construction suggested by Mr. The suit by a firm could only be brought by recourse to the procedural provision of O. 30 alone and in view of the settled position of law we cannot interpret suit by a firm as in any way different from the suit by the partners themselves. The construction suggested by Mr. Nanavati proceeds on the assumption that the firm is a legal entity which it is not. It also proceeds on the assumption that only by a fiction the partners are considered as the plaintiffs even though Their Lordships have held that in reality it is so and to such an extent that even when a bar to such a suit is to be considered this fiction must be treated as a reality. Mr. Nanavati also argued that this interpretation could result in great hardship which could not be intended by the Legislature. Mr. Nanavati therefore argued that when the section is capable of two constructions we should adopt that construction which would avoid all such results. In fact there is no ambiguity whatever in the expression used by the Legislature. There is no scope of two interpretations even as the expression used by the Legislature is persons suing and even when a suit is brought by a firm undoubtedly all the partners are the persons suing. What Mr. Nanavati wants us is to rewrite the section by modifying its language by holding that the second condition is by its very nature inapplicable to a case where the suit is filed in the name of a firm under O. 30. It is against all settled cannons of construction to rewrite or modify a plain term of the statute when no ambiguity is disclosed and when two constructions are not possible. If the Legislature wanted to exclude the second condition it would have suitable redrafted sec. 69 (2 ). ( 11 ) MR. Nanavati finally argued that by its inherent nature this second condition could not apply in case of a suit by a firm. When in the first condition we have held that in cases of reconstitution of a firm a registered firm continues we can always envisage cases where both the conditions may be fulfilled in case of a suit by a firm. When in the first condition we have held that in cases of reconstitution of a firm a registered firm continues we can always envisage cases where both the conditions may be fulfilled in case of a suit by a firm. If the partnership is reconstituted by reason of retirement death or by outgoing of any partner after it has been registered under the names of the original partners such a firm would not only fulfill the first condition but equally second. In case of a suit by such a firm the partners who constitute the firm at the time of accrual of the cause of action were the original partners before its reconstitution and their names were shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm both the conditions would be obviously fulfilled. It is in these cases where the firm gets reconstituted by introduction of a new partner or partners and the cause of action accrued to such a reconstituted partnership that a difficulty might arise if the reconstitution is not notified to the Registrar of Firm. In that case as all the partners suing in the name of the firm would not be shown in the Register of Firms the second condition would not be fulfilled and the bar in sec. 69 (2) would be attracted. That itself makes it clear that there is nothing inherent in the nature of the case of the second condition which makes it inapplicable in the context of a continuing registered firm which brings a suit in the firm name and which fulfils the first condition. It can fulfil the second condition provided the partners at the time of accrual of cause of action get their names shown in the Register of Frims as partners before the institution of the suit. Therefore there is no absurdity or any redundancy if we were to to hold that the second condition is a mandatory condition even when the suit is brought by the firm in the firm name under 0. 30. In fact to give any other construction as suggested by Mr. Nanavati would make this second condition redundant and would seek to modify the language by ignoring the conjunction and which the Legislature has advisedly used. 30. In fact to give any other construction as suggested by Mr. Nanavati would make this second condition redundant and would seek to modify the language by ignoring the conjunction and which the Legislature has advisedly used. Even if we look the object underlying this salutary provision which is for protecting the innocent third party it would hardly make any difference whether the suit is brought in a convenient form of a suit in the firm name or by partners. if the bar applies in one case there would be no reason why the bar should not apply in the other case. We must keep in mind the fact that the Legislature envisages a complete bar is the firm is not registered and if the partners at the time of cause of action are not or have not been shown in the Register of Firms because such a suit is completely barred irrespective of the fact whether the suit is filed in the firm name or by individual partners. Sec. (69) (3) (a) makes it clear that it is only after getting the firm dissolved that a suit can be filed in such cases by partners for realising the property of a dissolved firm from a third party. That exception is provided by the Legislature itself. But unless the case is brought in that exception in sec. 69 (3) (a) the bar would be applied both as regards the suit in the name of the firm as well as the suit by individual partners. ( 12 ) WE would consider the relevant authorities which have been cited before us in this connection. In Pratapchand Ramchand and Co. v. Jehangirji Bomanji Chinoy 42 Bom L R. 497 Blackwell J. had to consider this question in the context of a reconstituted firm which was reconstituted by two of the original partners-Chhogamal Dhanji and Chunilal Idanji- after the death of the third partner Partapchand. Blackwell J. proceeded on the footing that the firm was in fact dissolved on the death of the partner Partapchand. Blackwell J. proceeded on the footing that the firm was in fact dissolved on the death of the partner Partapchand. At page 500 Blackwall J. observed that the Act did contemplate notwithstanding dissolution by death that so far as registration was concerned the firm was to be deemed still to be registered and it empowered any person who was a partner immediately before the dissolution to give notice of the change and requited the Registrar to record that notice in the entry relating to the registration of the firm and to file it along with the original statement which had been filed. As regards the second condition Blackwell J. observed at page 500 that the at the time of the institution of the suit the firm was registered and it consisted of two original partners whose names were shown on the register at the date of the institution of the suit. The fact that the firm was registered at the date of the institution of the suit and the names of the persons suing the firm being a compendious name for the persons suing were shown in the register at the date of the institution of the suit appeared to be a compliance with sec. 69 (2) of the Act. Further proceeding Blackwell I. observed that it would seen that the Legislature introduced the words with which that sub-section concluded viz. and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm advisedly. If additional partners had come into the firm as partners since the date of registration and their names had not been entered on the register in accordance with notice of a change in the constitution of the firm given to the Registrar of Firms it might well he that the firm as then constituted could not sue because although it was a registered firm some of the persons then suing would not be shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm at the date of the suit. In Kesrimal v. Dalichand A I. R. 1959 Rajasthan 140 Modi J. had to deal with the later category of case envisaged by Blackwell J. In that case one Premchand of the plaintiffs firm having died his son Pukhraj came into partnership and he was one of the two persons who brought the suit although his name admittedly was never got registered in the Register of Firms at any time until such a suit that such a snit must be dismissed. At page 142 Modi J. summarised the legal position by holding that before a partner could maintain a suit to enforce a right arising from a contract against any third party two conditions must be fulfilled viz. first that the firm should be registered and where a partner thereof happened to have died a fresh or de novo registration of the firm need not be insisted upon as a matter of law and the firm could still be considered to be a registered one and the second requirement was that the person or persons or) whose behalf the suit was or had to be brought must have been shown in the Register of Firms as partners therein at the time of the institution of the suit; and that if both these conditions are not fulfilled such a suit must be held to be bad and unmaintainable and would have to be dismissed. In Dr. V. S. Bahal v. S. L. Kapur and Co. A I. R. 1956 Punjab 24 the Division Bench consisting of Bhandari C. J. and Falshaw J also took the same view of sec. 69 (2) of the Act. In that case also two questions bad arisen: (1) as to whether on retirement of one partner in 1942 the first firm S. L. Kapur dc Co. was dissolved necessitating a fresh registration of the reconstituted firm and (2) whether a suit could be filed on behalf of the firm in view of the fact that a third partner had subsequently been added whose name was only communicated to the Registrar during the pendency of the suit and did not appear in the Register of Firms at the date of the institution of the suit. At page 26 the Division Bench held that in order to institute a suit a partnership firm must not only be a registered firm but also all the persons who are partners in the firm at the time of the institution of the suit must be or have been shown as such in the Register of Firm. That certainly appeared to be the plain meaning of the words in sec. 69 (2) unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm. It is difficult to imagine what other meaning the words persons suing are capable of bearing in this context. There is no doubt that in a sense the firm itself is a person but in their Lordships view there could be no doubt that the words persons suing here meant persons in the sense of individuals and that the only individuals referred to must be partners in the firm. The Division Bench disagreed with the view taken in Sardar Singar Singh v. Sikri Brothers A I R. 1944 Oudh 37. This decision therefore takes the same view. We would however only clarify that the expression persons suing in the context of a suit by a firm would not mean partners at the date of the suit but only partners at the time of the accrual of the cause of action With that modification we are in complete agreement with the said ratio We also find that the same view of the two conditions being mandatory in the case where suit is filed in the name of the firm had been taken by the Division Bench consisting of Govinda Pillai and Vithayathil JJ in Bank of Koothatukulam v. Thomas A. I. R. 1955 TC 155; and by Bose J. in Sohanlal Pachisia and Co. v. Bilasroy A. I. R. 1954 Cal. 179 at page 184 where an earlier unreported decision was referred to; and by Deo J. in Kapurchand Bhagaji v. Laxminarayan A. I. R. 1952 Nag. 57. Mr. v. Bilasroy A. I. R. 1954 Cal. 179 at page 184 where an earlier unreported decision was referred to; and by Deo J. in Kapurchand Bhagaji v. Laxminarayan A. I. R. 1952 Nag. 57. Mr. Nanavati on the other hand had drawn our attention to the three other decisions which appeared to take the contrary view that in case of a suit by a firm it would be sufficient if the first condition alone is complied with as to the firm being registered. In Raw Kumar v. Dominion of India A. I. R 1952 Allahabad 695 the Division Bench consisting of Wali Ullah and P. L. Bhargava JJ. has held that the firm being in fact the plaintiff and it being registered under the Partnership Act the provisions of sec. 69 (2) were complied with and hence the plaint could not be rejected for want of a copy of the registered firm showing the son Ramkumar as its partner. It appears that the learned Judge has even referred to Order 30 Rule I and has held that a suit instituted in the name of the firm under Order 30 Rule 1 is really a suit by partners of the firm collectively. The suit being by the firm the addition of the words through so and so was redundant and of no consequence. Even the plalnt was verified by Ramkumar. The learned Judge however in terms held that the suit was by the firm and the firm having been registered the provisions of sec. 69 (2) were fully complied with and it was wholly unnecessary for the trial Court to consider whether Ramkumar was or was not a partner in the firm. The learned Judge followed the decision in Sardar Singar Singh v. Sikri Brothers A. T. R. 1944 Oudh 37 where also the Division Bench had held that the real plaintiff in the case being a firm of Sikri Brothers mention of the name of one partner Nagpal through whom the suit was brought did not make him the plaintiff and that such a defect if any was one of form and not of substance. Both these decisions therefore proceed on the assumption that the second condition could not apply in case of a firm and also on the footing that in case of a suit by the firm in the name of the firm the firm is the real plaintiff That view is obviously inconsistent with the settled legal position which we have referred to of the suit by a firm which is only in form in the name of the firm or by the firm but in substance and in reality by partners themselves. Mr. Nanavati finally relied upon the decision in Chiman Lal v. Firm New India Traders A I. R 1962 Patna 25 by the Division Bench consisting of Kanhaiya Singh and Ramratna Singh JJ. At page 27 the Division Bench observed that sec. 69 (2) must be read with Order 30 Rule 1 of the Code. In view of Their Lordships these provisions read together apparently mean that when a suit was instituted in the name of a registered firm only those persons who were registered as partners of the firm could get the benefit of a decree in favour of the firm or should be liable for a decree against the firm subject to these conditions the suit is maintainable and for purposes of this suit only two partners who are registered in the registration certificate were deemed to be partners of the plaintiff firm. The via-media found out by the Division Bench in that case is wholly inconsistent with the settled legal position that a suit under Order 30 Rule I by or against a firm would be really by all the partners in the firm and the decree in such a suit would be in favour of or against all the partners who constitute the firm at the time of the accrual of the cause of action. These three decisions therefore could not be considered as good law in view of the aforesaid settled position in so far as they proceed on the footing which is inconsistent with the settled legal position and we respectfully disagree with the said three decisions. These three decisions therefore could not be considered as good law in view of the aforesaid settled position in so far as they proceed on the footing which is inconsistent with the settled legal position and we respectfully disagree with the said three decisions. In the result our conclusion as regards both these conditions is that no separate registration is necessary where there is reconstitution of a continuing firm but the second condition must also be complied with by showing that not only the continuing firm is a registered firm but that all the partners at the date of the accrual of the cause of action are or have been shown in the Register of Firm as partners. If these two conditions are not fulfilled the suit In the name of the firm under Order 30 would be clearly barred by virtue of sec. 69 (2) of the Act. ( 13 ) WE will now apply the ratio of this decision to the facts of the present case. ( 14 ) THERE are two partnership deeds of the firm of Mohatta Brothers on record at Ex. 115 dated 19th May 1949 and at Ex. 116 dated 24 October 1949. Under the first partnership deed Ex. 115 the plaintiff firm consisted of five adult partners and the minor Shashikumar Mohatta was admitted only to the benefits of the partnership. Under clause 16 Bai Satyavati Mohatta was to represent the minor as the guardian. The minor and one more adult partner were not liable for losses which were to be shared by the other four partners. By the second document at Ex. 116 dated 24th October 1919 the said firm was reconstituted by adding the sixth partner i. e. Bai Satyavati Mohatta. The material change introduced by the second document Ex 116 is that the minor who was admitted in the earlier partnership Ex 115 to the benefits of the partnership does not appear in the second deed and his share of four annas has been given to the newly added six h partner Satyavati Mohatta and after the new partnership came into effect from 24th October 1949 all the six partners were to share both in profits and losses according to their respective shares in the firm. There is no dispute that the registration entry at Ex. There is no dispute that the registration entry at Ex. 178 mentions only five adult partners and two minors admitted to the benefits of partnership in accordance with the partnership deed at Ex. 118 dated 19th May 1949 even though this entry appears to have been posted on 5th May 1952 in the Register of firms there is no mention of Bai Satyavati who entered the partnership as a sixth partner as per Ex. 116. After the present suit was filed by the firm of Mohatta Brothers Ahmedabad on 16th December 1954 the defendant company served a notice on 30th June 1955 calling upon the plaintiff firm to disclose the name and addresses of all the partners constituting the firm under O. 30 R. 2. The reply of the company is dated 8th August 1955. These two documents are now brought on record by consent of both the parties and have been exhibited as D. 1 and D. 2 as they show what had transpired in the suit. The written statement Ex. 12 has been filed by the defendant company on 28 July 1955. In the plaint the plaintiff-firm has not disclosed as to who were its partners or by what deed of Partnership the firm was constituted. The defendant has however raised the present contention In para 2 of Ex. 12 ( 15 ) THE defendant company has in terms mentioned six partners including Satyavati Mohatta as per deed Ex. 116 dated 24th October 1949. The defendants have also pleaded in the said para 2 that the firm of Messrs Mohatta Brothers consisted of only six partners who had tendered their resignations on 1st August 1950 on condition that the scheme Ex. 168 was duly approved. It was therefore this firm alone which could maintain the suit. The said firm and the plaintiffs having not been shown in the Register of Firms the suit was barred under the provisions of the Act. Meanwhile the notice Ex. D1 was already served by the defendant company to the plaintiff firm on 30th June 1955 and to which a reply Ex. D2 was given ky the plaintiff-firm 8th August 1955 mentioning that five adults partners and the minor Shashikumar had been admitted to the benefits of the partnership and therefore the partners who were suing were as per deed Ex. 115 dated 19th May 1949. D2 was given ky the plaintiff-firm 8th August 1955 mentioning that five adults partners and the minor Shashikumar had been admitted to the benefits of the partnership and therefore the partners who were suing were as per deed Ex. 115 dated 19th May 1949. Even though the defendant bad taken a specific contention the plaintiff firm has not sought any amendment in its pleading Mr. Gandhi therefore argued that it is not open to the Court to look to the volume of evidence in the absence of any specific pleading for considering the question whether the subsequent deed Ex. 116 was not acted upon. There is some substance in this contention of Mr. Gandhi. It is however to be noted that it was the defendant-company which had brought out all this material in the cross- examination of the plaintiffs partner Shivratan Mohotta Ex. 110. Therefore it is not open now to the defendant-company to plead that any prejudice has occurred when both the parties knew the real point in issue and had led all the evidence on that disputed question as to whether the subsequent deed Ex. 116 had been acted upon. Even the trial Court has given a finding in favour of the plaintiff-firm on this question. We shall thereore consider this question which is raised by Mr. Nanavati. After the execution of the deed Ex. 116 dated 24th October 1949. It must be kept in mind that the old company stopped working on 1st November 1949. The letter dated 1st December 1949 was written by the plaintiff-firm who were old managing agents of the defendant company for making change in the partners of their firm. In pursuance of the said letter a resolution was passed at Ex. 117 by the defendent-companys board of directors on 21 January 1950. At the said meeting the plaintiffs partners Shivratanji Mohotta was present as the chairman of the board of directors and another partner Sheth Chandratanji Mundra was also present. The resolution recites that the managing agents of the company having effected some changes in the firm and having sent the two partnership deeds dated 19 and 24-10-49 the Board had noted 811 the changes in the aforesaid deeds and had agreed to accept all the partners mentioned therein. This resolution leaves no doubt that the defendant company bad accepted the new partners as per Ex. 116 as its managing agents. This resolution leaves no doubt that the defendant company bad accepted the new partners as per Ex. 116 as its managing agents. The minutes of this resolution were confirmed on 1st August 1950. On the previous day the scheme Ex. 167 was already submitted on behalf of the new managing agents. The notice Ex. 170 issued by the company on 1 August 1950 for calling a meeting of the shareholders to approve the scheme Ex. 168 in terms mentioned that the managing agents bad tendered resignation of their office as secretaries treasurers and agents which was to be accepted by the said general meeting of 4th September 1950 when the scheme was to be approved. The letter of resignation Ex. 118 dated 1 August 1950 in terms states that Mohatta Brothers secretaries treasurers and agents of the Company tendered their resignation as such condition of the scheme of 31st July 1950 by Sheth Chatturbhujdas Chimanlal being approved by the share-holders in their meeting on 4th September 1950. The said resignation letter on behalf of the firm of M/s. Mohatta Brothers is signed by all the six partners in their individual names including Satyavati. She has not signed as the guardian of the minor. Thereafter the scheme was approved by the shareholders in the meeting on 4th September 1950 and the company thereby accepted the resignation of the old managing agents which was offered as per their letter Ex. 118. It is true that in the companys register maintained under sec. 87 of the Indian Companies Act at Ex. 424 the only change in the plaintiff firm which is noted is the one which took place on 1-4-49 by the deed Ex. 115. Thereafter the change noted by the Registrar of Companies is the introduction of the new managing agents from 4th September 1950. Therefore the intermediate change which had taken place on the companys record as per Ex. 116 in pursuance of the resolution of the board of directors dated 21st January 1950 Ex. 117 does not find place in Ex. 424. That is however not of any importance as the company might not have sent any such intimation. Therefore the intermediate change which had taken place on the companys record as per Ex. 116 in pursuance of the resolution of the board of directors dated 21st January 1950 Ex. 117 does not find place in Ex. 424. That is however not of any importance as the company might not have sent any such intimation. The fact however remains that so far as the business of the managing agents was concerned as soon as there was a change in the partners by the dead Ex 116 the managing agency firm of Messrs Mohatta Brothers had duly communicated such change to the defendant company by the letter dated 1 December 1949. The defendant company also agreed to accept the new partners on the faith of the representation of the managing agency firm. The said resolution of the board of directors has been passed by the chairman Shivratanji Mohotta and another partner Chandrattan Mundra. none of whom has taken up the contention that Ex. 116 was not acted upon. In fact the whole issue is completly clinched when we look to the letter of resignation Ex. 117. The scheme Ex. 168 was on the footing that the old managing agents Were to resign and the new managing agents were to take their place from 4th September 1950 when the scheme was approved. The said resignation letter is by six partners alone and the defendant company having accepted the resignation of the six partners it is not open to those six partners to contend any longer that the deed Ex 116 was not acted upon. Mr. Nanavati vehemently argued that mere execution of the deed would not lead to an inference that the partnership was acted upon. In the present case however the matter did not rest at that stage. The concern of which the plaintiff-firm was the managing agents had stopped working from 1st November 1949 immediately after the execution of Ex. 116 dated 24th October 1949. In spite of that the new partners took care to keep this entry on the record of the company as regards the change in the constitution of the managing agency firm. They duly sent communication to the defendant company by the letter dated 1st December 1949 and the company duly recognised them as managing agents by the resolution Ex. 117 on 21st January 1950. They duly sent communication to the defendant company by the letter dated 1st December 1949 and the company duly recognised them as managing agents by the resolution Ex. 117 on 21st January 1950. Not only the plaintiff-firm partners got themselves recognised as partners of the old managing agents firm but even they went further and tendered their resignations Even at that stage when the minutes of the old managing agents were confirmed on 1st August 1950 there was no such disclosure at all and no intimation by the plaintiff firm that the deed Ex. 116 was not acted upon. The company duly recognised these six persons as partners and accepted their resignations from 4th September 1950 when the scheme was approved and the new managing agents took their place from 4 September 1950. Therefore during all the relevant period for all intents and purposes these six persons had acted as managing agents of the defendant company. Mr. Nanavati has no doubt argued that Bai Satyavati was accustomed to sign indiscriminately and he pointed out some of the applications for renewal of registration before the Income-tax Department where Satyavati signed in some cases as guardian of and in some cases merely as Satyavati. It should be noted that Bai Satyavati has not come in the witness box. The plaintiff firm wants this finding that the deed was not acted upon at the back of Satyavati who not only sent intimation of her joining the partnership of the old managing agency firm to the company but even sent her resignation and got it accepted by the company. There is no substance in the contention of Mr. Nanavati that Satyavati had tendered her resignation as the guardian. In the deed Ex. 115 the minor was not at all a partner as he was only admitted to the benefits of partnership and that benefit alone was accepted by the guardian Satyavati acting for the minor. That would not have required Satyavati to tender any resignation. The conduct of Satyavati tendering resignation as per Ex. 118 is unexplainable except on the footing that she has been recognised as partner by an earlier resolution of the board and therefore she had tendered her resignation. Mr. Nanavati in this connection vehemently relied upon the applications before the Income-tax Department at Exs. The conduct of Satyavati tendering resignation as per Ex. 118 is unexplainable except on the footing that she has been recognised as partner by an earlier resolution of the board and therefore she had tendered her resignation. Mr. Nanavati in this connection vehemently relied upon the applications before the Income-tax Department at Exs. 280 281 282 and 283 to 285 for the years 1950 to 1956 for renewal of registration along with the corresponding assessment orders at Exs. 198 to 201 and in the said applications for registration the minor through Bai Satyavati her guardian has been shown as one of the partners. Mr. Nanavati therefore argued that when the question of distribution of profits came up the partners have treated the minor as a partner and not Bai Satyavati and that would be furnishing conclusive evidence to show that the deed Ex. 116 was not acted upon. The concerned clerk Damani Ex. 197 has admitted that he never read any of the Partnership deeds. It is this clerk Damani who attended to all the income-tax affairs and who wrote ail these accounts and if therefore this clerk never knew who were the real partners and acted on the imagination in furnishing such information it would have hardly any relevance for deciding this material question. Mr. Gandhi has relied upon the fact that in the two years even the losses have been shared between the partners. Mr. Nanavati replied that under sec 30 of the Act the minor would not have any personal liability but if he got profits in the earlier year his share could be debited and when he elected to join as a partner he could elect to be retrospectively liable even for the losses. That argument of Mr. Nanavati could not help him in this case The original deed Ex. 116 in terms mentioned that in any vear when there was loss only four partners were to bear toe loss while the fifth partner and the minor were not to bear that loss. The Income-tax assessment order for the two years 1951-52 and 1952-53 of the losses at Exs. 199 and 200 show that the losses had been distributed even to the fifth partner and even the minor through Satyavati and that itself clinches the issue that it was reconstituted partnership deed Ex. The Income-tax assessment order for the two years 1951-52 and 1952-53 of the losses at Exs. 199 and 200 show that the losses had been distributed even to the fifth partner and even the minor through Satyavati and that itself clinches the issue that it was reconstituted partnership deed Ex. 116 which was acted upon because otherwise the losses would have been shared by four partners as per the first deed Ex. 115. In fact all these aspects would have hardly any relevance because during the material period during which the reconstituted managing agency firm continued from 24th October 1949 to 4th September 1950 as we have already held there is conclusive evidence to show that the new partnership deed Ex. 116 was duly acted upon. Under the said deed Ex. 116 all the six partners got themselves recognised as partners of the old managing agency firm and they alone tendered resignations. After the same was accepted by the company. while entering into this contractual obligation under the scheme Ex. 168 the plaintiff firm would be completely precluded and estopped from taking up this contention that the partnership deed Ex. 116 was never acted upon. Even in the account books at Ex. 324 the entry of the profits or the share of losses in the name of minor through Satyavati would not help Mr. Nanavati as it was done by Damani Ex. 197 who never read any partnership deed. The plaintiffs partner Shivratan G. Mohatta is not able to read any accounts. His evidence at Ex. 110 hardly inspires any confidence for if Satyavati protested on the next day and the deed Ex. 116 was to be treated as deed letter the letter to the company would never have been written on 1-12-49 and under his chairmanship the Board would never pass the resolution Ex 117 on 21-1-50 or confirm the said minutes on 1-2-50. Even the mention of the share as having accrued to the minor through Bai Satyavati is consistent with the fact that it was Satyavati alone who was the sixth partner of the managing agency firm after its reconstitution by Ex. 116 on 24th October 1949. Therefore there is no substance in the contention of Mr. Nanavati that the said partnership deed Ex 116 was not acted upon and the finding of the trial Court on this question must be reversed. ( 16 ) MR. 116 on 24th October 1949. Therefore there is no substance in the contention of Mr. Nanavati that the said partnership deed Ex 116 was not acted upon and the finding of the trial Court on this question must be reversed. ( 16 ) MR. Gandhi has put up an alternative case and urged that besides Satyavati even the minor must be recognised as having become a partner from 1953. For this purpose Mr. Gandhi relies on the fact that the losses have been given to the minor at least from 1953 as per the account books and the assessment orders. When the grandfather Shivratan Mohatta was examined no such question as to the minors age was asked to him. If the defendant company wanted to establish that the minor had attained majority and after six months had become the partner of the plaintiff firm it should have asked the witness Shivratan Ex. 110 in that connection. Mr. Gandhi relied upon the statement in the evidence of witness Damani to the effect that the age of Shashikumar at the time of deposition was about 23-24 years on 26th March 1959 when Damani was examined. This is a rough estimate by Damani and it cannot be taken as the correct age of the minor. In fact the other witness Motilal Ex 34 who has been asked in this connection has stated that the age of the minor on the date of his deposition on 28th July 1959 was only 20 years. Therefore on the whole there is no evidence as regards the minors age and the whole argument of Mr. Gandhi is based on mere conjectures. Mr. Gandhi wanted to lead additional evidence in this appeal on the question of minors age but no ground whatever was made out for admission of any additional evidence at this stage and the said application is rejected by us. We have admitted additional evidence only by a consent of the parties as regards P I and P II by the plaintiff-firm to explain the accounts showing sales of stores and other articles which items were mentioned in the trial Courts judgment These accounts were duly proved. We have already allowed additional evidence by the consent of the parties as regards the disclosure of the names of the partners of the plaintiff-firm under order 30 Rule 2 by D I 3nd D II. We have already allowed additional evidence by the consent of the parties as regards the disclosure of the names of the partners of the plaintiff-firm under order 30 Rule 2 by D I 3nd D II. In that view of the matter we only hold that the deed Ex 116 was duly acted upon and the plaintiff firm at the time of the accrual of the cause of action consisted of six partners including Satyavati whose name admittedly is not shown in the Register of Firms. ( 17 ) MR. Nanavati next argued that the plaintiff-firm having duly disclosed five names of the adult partners and the sixth minor as having been admitted only to the benefits of the partnership in the reply Exs. D 1 and D 2 on 8th August 1955 as required under O. 30 R. 2 these were the only persons suing within the meaning of sec 69 (2) of the Act. This contention of Mr. Nanavati cannot be accepted It cannot be expected that the plaintiff firm could omit to mention all the relevant partners at the time when cause of action had accrued. The Legislature has provided a statutory bar under sec. 69 (2) both in cases where the suit is filed in firm name or where the individual partners bring a suit and the names of all the partners at the time of accrual of the cause of action must be disclosed. Even if such names are not disclosed the persons suing are all the partners at the date of the accrual of the cause of action and if the name of any such partner is not in the Register of Firms the second mandatory condition in sec. 69 (2) would not be fulfilled. Mr. Trivedi is right in pointing out that cases of co-promisees sec. 45 of the Indian Contract Act would require that the promise in their favour can be enforced jointly by all of them. Mr. Nanavati has no doubt argued that 0. 30 creates an exception to sec. 45 of the Indian Contract Act. We however cannot accept this contention of Mr. Nanavati. The said exception in 0 30 is a limited exception as mentioned in 0. 30 R. 4 which runs as under:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sec 45 of the Indian Contract Act. 30 creates an exception to sec. 45 of the Indian Contract Act. We however cannot accept this contention of Mr. Nanavati. The said exception in 0 30 is a limited exception as mentioned in 0. 30 R. 4 which runs as under:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sec 45 of the Indian Contract Act. 1872 where two or more persons may sue or be sued in the name of a firm under the foregoing provisions and any of such persons dies whether before the institution of or during the pendency of any suit it shall not be necessary to join the legal representative of deceased as a party to the suit. This non-obstante clause applies only when the partners sue in the firm name or are sued in the firm name and any of such persons dies whether before or during the pendency of a suit. In such a case it is not necessary to join the legal representatives or the deceased partner. The very restriction of this exception in R. 4 only to the case where the partner dies makes it amply clear that otherwise the provisions of sec 45 of the Indian Contract Act Act would normally prevail and any suit without joining all the partners or by the compendious use of the firm name without disclosing all the partners would obviously fail. In fact in case of death of a partner the number would be reduced and the second mandatory condition in sec. 69 (2) would be fulfilled by the registered firm if the name of the deceased partner was already shown. We have already distinguished these cases from the cases where new partner is added in which case alone the registered firm which fulfilled the first condition would not be able to fulfil the second mandatory condition in sec 69 (2) of the Act. The provision of 0. 30 R. 4 therefore would furnish an additional ground in support of our view that when a firm sues all the partners in whose favour the cause of action had accrued are suing and this is why there is no bar of sec. 45 of the Indian Contract Act and there would be equally no bar of sec. 69 (2) of the Act when names of all these partners of the reconstituted firm are shown in the Register of Firms. 45 of the Indian Contract Act and there would be equally no bar of sec. 69 (2) of the Act when names of all these partners of the reconstituted firm are shown in the Register of Firms. In the present case however the name of the sixth partner Bai Satyavati is not shown in the entry Ex. 178 with the Registrar of Firms and therefore this defect of non-compliance of the second condition of sec 69 (2) is fatal to the plaintiffs suit. ( 18 ) IN view of this legal position which we have discussed the second mandatory condition under sec. 69 (2) is not fulfilled in the present case as the name of Satyavati who was a partner of the reconstituted firm and in whose favour the cause of action had accured is not shown in the Register of Firms. This defect would be as fatal as the first defect of want of registration of the firm itself and in both the cases we would have no option but to dismiss the suit. In that view of the matter it would be wholly unnecessary to go into any of the other conditions which have been raised in these two appeals and to record any finding on the issues relating to the merits of the case or as regards the other appeal of the plaintiff as well. Howsoever much we may regret to dismiss the plaintiffs suit which apparently is well founded by upholding the technical objection of the defendant company we are bound to dismiss this suit as in law a non-compliance of this second mandatory condition is also equally fatal as the non-compliance of the first condition. At the same time however in the circumstances of the case while dismissing the plaintiffs suit we would order that both the parties shall bear their own costs all throughout. ( 19 ) IN the result we allow First Appeal No. 769 of 1960 by the defendant company by reversing the finding and the decree of the trial Court which proceeded on the basis that there was no bar under sec. 69 (2) and accordingly dismiss the plaintiffs suit. We also dismiss First Appeal No. 1029 of 1960 filed by the plaintiff-firm for the same reasons. ( 20 ) MR. Nanavati orally applied for certificate for fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court. 69 (2) and accordingly dismiss the plaintiffs suit. We also dismiss First Appeal No. 1029 of 1960 filed by the plaintiff-firm for the same reasons. ( 20 ) MR. Nanavati orally applied for certificate for fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court. We are satisfied that the requirements of Articles 133 and 133 (1) (c) are fulfilled in the present case and we grant certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court under the said two provisions. . ( 21 ) IN the end we would acknowledge the great assistance we have received from the advocates on both the sides including Mr. B. S. Trivedi whose research had brought out all the relevant authorities on this vexed question before us. Order accordingly. .