Judgment :- 1. Before a Court permits a technical plea to triumph every reasonable endeavour should be made to avoid such a consequence. Two suits were instituted by a firm on the strength of two promissory notes executed by the defendant; both were dismissed since a plea based on the bar of S.69 (2) of the Partnership Act found favour with the lower court. 2. I shall dispose of both the C. R. Ps. by a common judgment because the suits are between the same parties, and have both been dismissed on the same point viz., the bar of S.69 (2) of the Partnership Act. The plaintiff, in both the suits, is a firm registered under S.59 of the Indian Partnership Act. In fact the promissory-notes executed by the defendant show that the promisee is a registered firm. What is more, Exts. A4 and A5 also prove that the firm is registered. Therefore, the contention in the written statement that the firm is not registered has not found favour with the lower court. But, according to the learned Munsiff, there are two ingredients to be established under S.69 (2), the first being the registration of the firm and the second being the showing of the plaintiff-partner in the register of firms as a partner of the firm. He argues, after extracting S.69 (2): "That means two conditions have to be satisfied viz. (1) the firm is registered (2) the person suing is shown in the Register of Firms as a partner in the firm. The best evidence to prove that the name of the plaintiff is shown in the Register of Firms as a partner of the Balakrishna Trading Corporation is the entry in the Register of Firms or a certified copy thereof which the plaintiff has failed to produce. In the absence of such evidence, the plaintiff can hardly claim to have successfully proved that his name is entered in the Register of Firms as a partner of the firm." For failure to prove the second part of S.69 (2) of the Partnership Act, the two suits have been dismissed. 3. Counsel for the revision petitioner strenuously argues that the learned Munsiff is wrong in upholding the objection of the defendant. In the plaint it has been alleged that Kelappan i e., the party suing, is a partner of the firm. 3. Counsel for the revision petitioner strenuously argues that the learned Munsiff is wrong in upholding the objection of the defendant. In the plaint it has been alleged that Kelappan i e., the party suing, is a partner of the firm. It is further alleged in the plaint that the firm has been registered and its number is 103 of 1965. In the written statement the denial is only of the registration of the firm and not of the averment that the plaintiff is a partner. Therefore, an admission may be implied, in the light of 0.8 R.5 CPC., about Kelappan being a partner of the registered firm. On this conclusion the Court should have negatived the objection of the defendant. It is further contended that Ex. A4, an acknowledgment of the receipt of the statement under S.58(1) of the Indian Partnership Act, itself shows that Shri Kelappan is a partner of the plaintiff firm. In fact, it is addressed to M/s. Balakrishna Trading Corporation, C/o. Shri T. M. Kelappan, Partner. Thus, it is clear that the partner suing is mentioned as a partner in the statement furnished under S.58 (1) of the Indian Partnership Act. S.59 of the Act requires the Registrar to be satisfied that the provisions of S.58 have been duly complied with. S.58 (1) (3) requires the name in full of the partners of the firm to be included in the statement. From Ext. A4 read in the background of S.58 and 59, it follows that the Registrar has been satisfied that Sri. T. M. Kelappan is a partner. It is not as if the mention of the name of Kelappan in the register can be proved only by producing a certified copy of the register. It may be inferred in other ways also. 4. I am therefore, inclined to hold that the dismissal of the suit on the ground that S.69 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act is a bar to the maintainability of the action is wrong. 5. It appears to me, although I am not called upon finally to pronounce upon it in the light of the finding already recorded by me, that S.69 (2) does not bear the construction put upon it by the learned Munsiff. 5. It appears to me, although I am not called upon finally to pronounce upon it in the light of the finding already recorded by me, that S.69 (2) does not bear the construction put upon it by the learned Munsiff. Of course, the firm must be registered; but is it obligatory that the name of the suing partner should be shown in the register of firm although, ordinarily, every partner's name would be shown in the register? The legal requirement is that the person suing should be a partner or should be shown in the register of firms as a partner. I read S.69 (I) and, in the same manner S.69 (2) in the following way. "The person suing is a partner in the firm or has been shown in the Register of Firms as a partner of the firm". In this case, admittedly, the person suing is a partner in the firm and the second condition in S.69 (2) is therefore fulfilled. 6. Even if the learned Munsiff wanted to dispose of the suit on a preliminary ground, he should have really taken evidence and recorded a finding on the other issues in the case, if any, so as to obviate a remand of the suit at the revisional stage. Now that I have set aside the finding of the learned Munsiff on point No. 1, I am constrained to send back the suit for trial on the other points. I direct the Munsiff to try the suit, record findings on all the points except point No.1 and to dispose of the suit finally on the merits. 7. The learned Munsiff has referred to certain rulings which have a bearing on the point under discussion. Bank of Koothattukulam v. Itten Thomas (AIR. 1955 T.C. 155) supports the position that not merely should the firm be registered, but the person suing must be shown as a partner in the Register of Firms, I am not inclined to agree with the reasoning in this case, but I am not called upon to pronounce finally on this point. Kapurchand Bhagaji Firm v. Lazman Trimbak (AIR. 1952 Nag. 57) states that a certified copy of an entry from the register is the proper secondary evidence and not the oral evidence of the plaintiff to prove the fact that the alleged partners where shown in the register of firms as partners. Kapurchand Bhagaji Firm v. Lazman Trimbak (AIR. 1952 Nag. 57) states that a certified copy of an entry from the register is the proper secondary evidence and not the oral evidence of the plaintiff to prove the fact that the alleged partners where shown in the register of firms as partners. I agree that the oral evidence of the plaintiff cannot do duty for secondary evidence in regard to the contents of a public document. But Ex. A4 is a statutory acknowledgment addressed to the partner of the firm in connection with the registration of the firm and so the observations in that decision do not apply to the present case. There must be evidence that the suing partner has been shown as a member of a firm in the register and Ext. A4 does show that fact. 8. There is yet another point which arises in the case viz., that the second part of S.69(2) does not apply if the suit is by the firm itself In M/s. Ram Kumar Ram Chandra v. The Dominion of India (AIR. 1952 Allahabad 695) a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that "a suit can be filed by 'the firm in accordance with the provisions contained in 0.30, and when such a suit is instituted, the firm is to be described as 'A.B., a firm carrying on business in partnership at " Their Lordships went on to observe: "In the present case the firm was so described in the plaint, but the words 'through Ram Kumar, adult son of Sarjoo Prasad alias Vaish residing at Naya Ganj, Kanpur partner of the firm' were added. In law this addition was unnecessary and as such it can be treated as redundant and ignored. The above addition does not and cannot alter the fact that the firm is, in fact, the plaintiff. As the firm had no legal status as such, the suit has been instituted by the firm as representing all the partners. Here we may notice the definition of the term 'firm' in the Partnership Act. It has been defined in the said Act in this way; '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'. Here we may notice the definition of the term 'firm' in the Partnership Act. It has been defined in the said Act in this way; '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'. It would thus appear that where a suit is instituted in the name of a firm under R.1 of 0.30, Civil P.C. it is really a suit by the partners of the firm collectively. The present suit was, therefore, a suit by the firm and the addition of the words 'through so and so' was redundant and of no consequence. The present suit being by the firm and the firm having been registered the provisions of sub-section (2) of S.69 of Partership Act were fully complied with. In the circumstances, it was wholly unnecessary for the trial court to consider whether Ram Kumar was or was not a partner in the firm." Their Lordships purported to follow the view expressed in the ruling reported in Sardar Sinha Singh v. Sikri Brothers (AIR. 1944 Oudh 37) where a contention, similar to the one put forward in the present suit, was urged in vain. The Oudh High Court held that the firm was the real plaintiff in the case and that the mere mention of a partner through whom the suit was brought did not make him the plaintiff. The description as partner, when the firm itself had filed the plaint, was treated as mere surplusage. Therefore if a firm as such is the plaintiff although brought through a partner, the second ingredient that the partner should be shown to have been entered in the register as a partner need not be fulfilled. In the present case, Balakrishna Trading Corparation is the plaintiff although the name of the parter T. M. Kelappan is also mentioned. In para 1 there is the following reference: The promissory-note sued on is executed in favour of the firm and there is the further reference to thus indicating that the plaintiff is the firm and not a partner suing on behalf of the firm. If this conclusion be correct, then, in the light of the rulings already adverted to, the question of the partner Kelappan being shown in the register of firms as a partner does not even arise. 9. If this conclusion be correct, then, in the light of the rulings already adverted to, the question of the partner Kelappan being shown in the register of firms as a partner does not even arise. 9. I set aside the decrees dismissing the suits and direct the lower court to dispose of the suits on the merits. Allowed.