M. B. VISHWANATH, J. ( 1 ) THIS is plaintiffs second appeal. The plaintiff, M/s. Balaji finance Corporation (Regd.), a partnership firm, filed a suit original Suit No. 565 of 1990 on the file of the Additional munsiff at Arasikere against the two defendants on foot of a pro-note Ex. P-6, dated 12-1-1988 said to have been executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. ( 2 ) THE execution of the pro-note is admitted by the defendants. ( 3 ) THE learned Additional Munsiff decreed the suit. ( 4 ) THE defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Munsiff, preferred appeal regular Appeal No. 43 of 1993 before the learned Civil Judge, arasikere. The learned Civil Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. ( 5 ) THE learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit on two grounds. The first ground was that the firm was not registered on the date of the suit. The suit was filed on 18-12-1990. ( 6 ) THE money-lending licence Ex. P-3 has been renewed by the concerned authorities on 16-6-1988. Ex. P-3 has again been renewed as per Ex. P-4 dated 16-3-1990. The suit was filed on 18-12-1990. It is clear from Ex. P-4 that it was valid upto 31-12-1990. This means that on the date of the suit, the plaintiff-firm had money-lending licence. It is obvious" that the learned appellate Judge has committed a mistake in not properly construing the documents. ( 7 ) THE next argument maintained by the learned Counsel for the respondent - defendant is that on the date of the suit transaction the partnership firm was not registered as contemplated under Section 69 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act. It is not disputed that the plaintiff-partnership firm was registered on the date of the suit. ( 8 ) THE suit transaction is dated 12-1-1988. Section 69 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act says: "no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of the firm. . . . . unless the firm is registered. . . . . ". It is clear from the language of Section 69 (2) that the firm should be registered on the date of the suit. It does not contemplate that it should be registered on the dat _ of transaction also. . . . . unless the firm is registered. . . . . ". It is clear from the language of Section 69 (2) that the firm should be registered on the date of the suit. It does not contemplate that it should be registered on the dat _ of transaction also. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent-defendant relied ona decision in the case of Loonkaran Sethia v Mr. Ivan E. John and Others1 and submitted that the firm should be registered on the date of the transaction also. It is clear from paragraph 21 at page '',47 that the Supreme Court has been pleased to observe that Section 69 of the Partnership Act is mandatory in character and its effect is to render a suit by a plaintiff in respect of right vested in him or acquired by him under a contract which he entered into as a partner of an unregistered firm, whether existing or dissolved, void. The Supreme Court has been pleased to make it clear that a partner of an erstwhile unregistered firm cannot bring a suit to enforce a right arising out of a contract falling within the ambit of Section 69 of the Partnership Act. The Supreme Court was pleased to deal with a suit brought by one of the partners of an unregistered partnership firm. That is not the position in the instant case. In the instant case, the suit has been brought by a registered partnership firm against third parties, the third parties within the meaning of Section 69 (2) of the Partnership Act. ( 10 ) THE learned appellate Judge has not properly construed the legal requirement under Section 69 (2) of the Partnership act. The judgment of the learned appellate Judge cannot be sustained since he has committed a serious error of law. ( 11 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the second appeal is allowed with costs throughout. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge in Regular Appeal No. 43 of 1993 are set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the learned additional Munsiff in Original Suit No. 565 of 1990 are restored. --- *** --- .