N. J. PANDYA, J. ( 1 ) THE appeal is filed by the original plaintiff of the Special Civil Suit No. 63 of 1986 against the order below exhibits 5 and 7 of that suit. By now almost six years have passed and the parties are operating under the Trial Courts order to maintain status quo. No doubt the Trial Court had made this arrangement only upto 31. 7. 1988 but as could be seen from the record of the case file of this appeal this position has continued till date. ( 2 ) THE finding of the Trial Court that the suit itself is not maintainable is totally unsustainable. The learned Judge expressed the view that only the firm should have been registered on the date of the filing of the suit and names of all the persons should be shown in the record of the Registrar of Firms on that date but it should be the position also on the date on which the cause of action had arisen. The relevant position is section 69 of the Indian Partnerships Act 1932 obviously section 69 (2) does not speak of cause of action. ( 3 ) HOWEVER the learned Trial Judge in fairness to him was persuaded to take this view relying on the judgment reported in 10 GLR Pg. 457 in the course of discussion in which in para 11 at page 470 there seems to be the observation pursuant to Order 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 4 ) IT being Division Bench Judgment no doubt it will not be possible for me to take any course of action except to follow it. However there is no necessity for me to do that because AIR 1989 S. C. Pg. 1769 is directly on the point and it says that if the firm is registered on the date of the suit and names of all the partners of the firm were shown in the record of the Registrar of Firms on that date the suit is maintainable. Impliedly therefore the observations made in para 10 GLR Pg. 457 will no longer be applicable. Moreover the said decision reported in 10 GLR has been in terms set aside in AIR 1976 S. C. Pg. 1703. ( 5 ) NO doubt the Supreme Court judgment reversing the judgment reported in 10 GLR Pg. Impliedly therefore the observations made in para 10 GLR Pg. 457 will no longer be applicable. Moreover the said decision reported in 10 GLR has been in terms set aside in AIR 1976 S. C. Pg. 1703. ( 5 ) NO doubt the Supreme Court judgment reversing the judgment reported in 10 GLR Pg. 457 is entirely on facts and the question as to interpretation of section 69 (2) of the Partnerships Act has not been gone into. As could be seen from para 21 of the Supreme Court Judgment it is clear that entire judgment of the High Court has been set aside and the matter has been remanded. In any case AIR 1989 S. C. Pg. 1769 is directly on the interpretation of section 69 of the Partnerships Act. ( 6 ) MOREOVER not only the firm was registered on the date of the filing of the suit but all the partners shown in the record of the Registrar of Firms were partners of the firm when the cause of action had arisen. On this count therefore the finding of the Trial Court cannot be accepted. I have given these details because from this it will be obvious that while continuing arrangement of maintaining of status quo if the suit is required to be tried by the Trial Court first of all the aforesaid finding as to the maintainability of the suit which is under appeal has to be set aside. For the reasons stated above I therefore set aside this finding but at the same time direct that the parties shall maintain status quo and the Trial Court shall proceed with the suit as expeditiously as possible. The appeal is allowed to that limited extent. Parties to bear their own costs. Status quo order will remain in operation till the Suit is disposed of. Appeal Allowed. .