ORDER 1. LEAVE GRANTED. 2. THE SHORT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER THE SUIT FILED BY THE APPELLANT WAS MAINTAINABLE UNDER SECTION 69 SUB-SECTION (3) OF THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "THE ACT"). IN THE PLAINT, THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED A DECREE FOR ACCOUNTING OF THE APPELLANTS PROFITS AND FOR DISSOLUTION OF THE FIRM OF WHICH RESPONDENTS 1-4 ARE ALSO PARTNERS. THE FIRST PRAYER OF THE F PLAINT ALSO PROVIDES FOR A TENTATIVE VALUATION OF THE RELIEF CLAIMED AND THAT "PROCESS COURT FEE SHALL BE PAID ON THE PLAINTIFFS SHARE OF PROFITS AFTER FINAL ACCOUNTING IS DONE BETWEEN THE PARTIES". IN ADDITION TO THIS THERE WAS A SECOND PRAYER FOR PAYMENT OF PROFITS PLUS INVESTMENT AND FOR AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING DEFENDANTS 3 TO 6 WHO ARE RESPONDENTS 1-5 BEFORE THIS COURT FROM RECEIVING ANY PAYMENT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE APPELLANT. 3. THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION RAISED BY RESPONDENTS 1-5 BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT THAT THE SUIT WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, WAS ALLOWED FOR REASONS WHICH ARE INCOMPREHENSIBLE. THE APPELLANT PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE WHO PARTIALLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL BY HOLDING THAT THE FIRST PRAYER WHICH PERTAINED TO THE DISSOLUTION OF THE FIRM ACCOUNTS WAS MAINTAINABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69(3) BUT THAT THE SECOND PRAYER COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED. ACCORDINGLY, THE MATTER WAS REMANDED BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECIDING THE SUIT INSOFAR AS IT PERTAINED TO THE FIRST RELIEF. 4. RESPONDENTS 1-5 PREFERRED AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE TO THE HIGH COURT. THE HIGH COURT UPSET THE FINDING OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON WHATSOEVER. 5. THE LANGUAGE OF CLAUSE (A) OF SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 69 OF THE ACT SHOWS THAT SUITS FOR DISSOLUTION OF AN UNREGISTERED FIRM OR FOR ACCOUNTS OF A DISSOLVED FIRM OR FOR ANY RIGHT OR POWER TO REALISE THE PROPERTY OF A DISSOLVED FIRM HAVE BEEN EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED FROM THE EMBARGO PUT ON THE FILING OF SUITS BY AN UNREGISTERED FIRM OR BY ANY PARTNER OF AN UNREGISTERED FIRM. THE FIRST PRAYER IN THE PLAINT SQUARELY FALLS WITHIN THIS EXCEPTION. THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MUST BE RESTORED. 6. THE FIRST PRAYER IN THE PLAINT SQUARELY FALLS WITHIN THIS EXCEPTION. THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MUST BE RESTORED. 6. AS FAR AS THE SECOND PRAYER IS CONCERNED, WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED BY LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT THAT HIS CLIENT HAS PREFERRED A REVIEW APPLICATION BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE WHICH IS PENDING DECISION. AS SUCH WE DO NOT EXPRESS ANY VIEW ON THAT ASPECT OF THE MATTER. 7. THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. THERE WILL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.