Judgement This appeal by the defendant is directed against a judgment and decree passed by the Sub-Judge, U. A. D., Jorhat, in Title Suit No. 30 of 1960. 2. The plaintiffs case is that he and the defendant carried on a business during the years 1953-54 and 1954-55. The plaintiff used to advance money in the business while the defendant used to do contract works, taking contracts in his own name. In that capacity the defendant had earned profits in the business; but, taking advantage of the position that he was managing the business and doing the contract works has refused to pay money to the plaintiff. The defendant is liable to render accounts of the business and pay necessary share of the profits earned by the firm. In a rough estimate, according to the plaintiff, he has received from the defendant a sum of Rs. 7,853/-, which he advanced to the defendant for the purpose of business. It is also alleged by the plaintiff that on 5-11-1955, the defendant made an endorsement in the plaintiffs book to the effect that the final account would be rendered after receipt of the final bills from the works done in 1954-55. The defendant also admitted, it is alleged, that he had received sums of money from the plaintiff. 3. As the defendant did not pay any money to the plaintiff, the latter filed Money Suit No. 6 of 1956 against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 7,853/-. The suit was, however, withdrawn with the permission of the Court to refile it. But the defendant did neither render any account nor did he pay any money to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sent a notice dated 28-7-1959 through his Advocate intimating the dissolution of the partnership firm with effect from the date of the notice and requested the defendant to render accounts by 30-8-1959. But, as his request was not complied with, the plaintiff has brought the present suit. 4. In the present suit, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree for Rs. 7853/- or any other amount that may be found due after rendition of accounts of the dissolved firm. 5. The defendant has filed a written statement. But, as his request was not complied with, the plaintiff has brought the present suit. 4. In the present suit, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree for Rs. 7853/- or any other amount that may be found due after rendition of accounts of the dissolved firm. 5. The defendant has filed a written statement. He has admitted that he carried on business in partnership with the plaintiff since January, 1953, but he alleges that, as the partnership firm has not yet been dissolved, the question of rendering accounts does not arise. According to the Defendant, the partnership firm sustained a loss of Rupees 10,000/- and, as such, the plaintiff was not entitled to receive any money. His second plea is : as contract work under the Public Works Department by an unregistered firm is forbidden by law, the plaintiff cannot claim any money or any share of any income by the partnership firm. 6. The learned Trial Court framed the following issues :- a). Whether the suit is maintainable? b). Whether there is any partnership between the plaintiff and the defendant? c). Whether the partnership is liable to be dissolved? d). Whether the contracts done by the defendant under P. W. D. were on behalf of the partnership business or in his individual capacity? e). Whether on dissolution of the partnership the parties are liable to render accounts? f). Whether the suit is barred by limitation? g). To what relief if any are the parties entitled? After considering the above issues, the learned trial Court passed the impugned decree by which he declared the partnership firm dissolved and passed the preliminary decree directing rendition of the accounts by the parties and for the appointment of a commission for the purpose. 7. Mr. J.K. Barua, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the suit is hit by Sec. 69 of the Partnership Act; that a suit for account cannot be combined with a suit for dissolution of partnership; that an unregistered partnership firm cannot take contract under the P. W. D and that there is no sufficient evidence to warrant the impugned decree. 8. The notice dated 28th July, 1959, was issued to the defendant by the plaintiff through his Advocate Mr. R. Barua. In paragraph 4 of that notice (Ext. 8. The notice dated 28th July, 1959, was issued to the defendant by the plaintiff through his Advocate Mr. R. Barua. In paragraph 4 of that notice (Ext. 7) it was stated, "my client therefore, intends to dissolve the partnership from today and accordingly it stands dissolved." 9. Section 43 of the Partnership Act, 1932 - hereinafter referred to as "the Act" provides- "43(1) Where the partnership is at will, the firm may be dissolved by any partner giving notice in writing to all the other partners of his intention to dissolve the firm." "(2) The firm is dissolved as from the date mentioned in the notice as the date of dissolution or, if no date is so mentioned, as from the date of the communication of the notice." 10. Partnership at will has been defined under Section 7 of the Act as follows:- "7. Where no provision is made by contract between the partners for the duration of their partnership, or for the determination of their partnership, the partnership is "partnership at will." 11. In the instant case, admittedly, there is no written agreement of partnership. It is a common ground that the partnership in question was a partnership at will. As such the notice (Ext. 3) was a notice under Section 43 of the Act and by it, the partnership between the plaintiff and the defendant was dissolved with effect from 28th July, 1959, i. e. the date of the notice Ext. 3. 12. The material portion of Section 69 of the Act, may be quoted :- "69. (1) No suit to enforce a right arising from contract or conferred by this Act shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be or to have been a partner in the firm unless the firm is registered and the person suing is or has been shown in the Register of Firms as a partner in the firm." "(2). No suit to enforce a right arising from 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." "(3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply also to a claim of set-off or other proceeding to enforce a right arising from a contract, but shall not affect - (a). the enforcement of any right to sue for the dissolution of a firm or for accounts of a dissolved firm, or any right or power to realise the property of a dissolved firm. 13. A plain reading of the Section quoted above shows that sub-sections (1) and (2) apply to existing firms only. Sub-sections (1) and (2) apply only when a partner sues to enforce a right arising from a contract or confirmed by the Act and when the suit is by a partner as a partner in a firm against the firm. This shows that the suit must be by a partner of a firm and against the firm and a suit against a firm is possible only when it is in existence and a suit as a partner in a firm is possible only when the firm is existing. The same interpretation applies to sub-section (2) of Section 69. Sub-section (3) provides that sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply to a claim of set-off or other proceeding to enforce a right arising from a contract but shall not apply for the enforcement of any right to sue for the dissolution of a firm or for accounts of a dissolved firm, or any right or power to realise the property of a dissolved firm. 14. In the instant case, we have already held that the firm had already been dissolved before the suit was instituted. Therefore, the relief for dissolution of the firm was misconceived and unnecessary as the firm being a partnership firm at will had already stood dissolved under Section 43 of the Act. But the suit for rendition of account of a dissolved firm is competent under clause (a) of sub-section (3) to which sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 69 are not applicable. But the suit for rendition of account of a dissolved firm is competent under clause (a) of sub-section (3) to which sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 69 are not applicable. In the result, I hold that the plaintiffs suit for rendition of accounts of the firm, which had already been dissolved is not barred under Section 69 of the Act. 15. It is not denied that an unregistered partnership firm cannot take contract work under the Public Works Department. There is also nothing to show that the contract work in question was taken by the partnership firm under the P. W. D. The evidence of P. W. 2, Md. Golapjan Ali, who was the Head Assistant of the E and D Department, shows that there were contracts in the name of the defendant during the years 1953-54, 1954-55 and 1955-56. He says that all the payments have been made. It is, therefore, clear that the contract in question was in the name of the defendant. The only question is : whether this contract in question was taken by the defendant for and on behalf of himself alone or on behalf of the plaintiff and himself. The defendant did not examine himself, nor did he examine any other witnesses; on the other hand, the evidence of the plaintiff shows that the defendant was doing the contract works under the E and D/PWD and Local Board. His evidence is that the defendant used to maintain all accounts and that he has also maintained a book wherein the defendant recorded the payments received from him and payments made to him. The defendant made those records in his own hand. The book has been proved as Ext. 1 and the relevant entries have been proved as Exts. 1 (1) to 1 (6). Ext. 1 (2) is very material and may be quoted :- "No account of the contract work which I did together with Sri Jatin Barua as shareholder in 1953/54 and 1954/55 on the agreement that half of the profit would go to the Capital and other half to the contractor has yet been calculated. Today, on 5-11-1955, I recorded the accounts in details in his book after scrutiny in respect of the capital received from the said Sri Jatindra Nath Barua for spending in the contract work and of the amount which were returned to him. Today, on 5-11-1955, I recorded the accounts in details in his book after scrutiny in respect of the capital received from the said Sri Jatindra Nath Barua for spending in the contract work and of the amount which were returned to him. The calculation in respect of profit and loss of the contract work done during 1954/55 will be finalised as soon as the receipt of the final bills." This endorsement has not been denied by the defendant. On the contrary, in paragraph 8 of the written statement filed by the defendant in Money Suit No. 6 of 1956, which is proved as Ext. 10 in the present suit, the defendant stated :- "That both the plaintiff and the defendant advanced capital in the business and without any account of income and expenditure in the business the plaintiff cannot be entitled to any money as from the plaint it appears that the plaintiff and the defendant are joint equal partners and entitled to half of profit and loss of the business." In paragraph 7 of the same written statement, it was stated :- "That from the plaintiffs own account enclosed with the suit it will be found that the total sum would have been Rs. 7326/15/- in place of Rs. 7,853/-/6 and the amount advanced for the joint equal partnership business by the plaintiff yet to be returned will be Rs. 3505/1 /- without taking into account of profit and loss and as such the account furnished are not correct and the plaintiff cannot get remedy in such a suit." Ext. 4 is another document executed by the defendant, which acknowledges a due Rs. 720.14 As. 6 P. (Rupees seven hundred twenty and annas fourteen and paise six only) on account of the goods purchased from the shop of the plaintiff. It runs as under :- "The total amount taken Rs. 720.14 As. 6 P. (Rupees seven hundred twenty and annas fourteen and paise six only) on account of goods purchased from the shop of Sri Jatin Barua upto 5-11-1955 of 1955". Ext. 5 is another document, which shows a series of receipts of different sums of money by the defendant from the plaintiff. 720.14 As. 6 P. (Rupees seven hundred twenty and annas fourteen and paise six only) on account of goods purchased from the shop of Sri Jatin Barua upto 5-11-1955 of 1955". Ext. 5 is another document, which shows a series of receipts of different sums of money by the defendant from the plaintiff. The above documents considered along with the oral evidence of the plaintiff conclusively prove that there was a business between the plaintiff and the defendant and in that business the plaintiff advanced from time to time sums of money to the defendant for the purpose of their business and unless the accounts of the amounts advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant and all the payments made by the defendant to the plaintiff is taken, the exact amount due to the plaintiff, if any, cannot be ascertained. 16. In the instant suit, the learned Sub-Judge passed only a preliminary decree, as stated above, directing rendition of accounts and for that purpose, for appointment of a commission. In my opinion, he has committed no error in passing the above decree. But his decree for dissolving the firm is illegal inasmuch as there was no existing firm at the time of the institution of the suit, as it had already been dissolved under Section 43 of the Act referred to above. 17. In the result, the decree of the learned Sub-Judge is modified to the extent that his decree for the dissolution of the partnership firm is set aside; but his preliminary decree for rendition of accounts and his order for appointment of a commission, for that purpose, are maintained. 18. With the above modifications in the decree, the appeal is dismissed with costs. Order accordingly.