Judgment S.K. SETH, J. ( 1. ) Heard Shri Mukati learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission. ( 2. ) Appellants are the defendants in a suit for dissolution of partnership firm and rendition of accounts filed by the respondent. ( 3. ) By the order impugned, appeal preferred by the respondent was allowed and the order of the trial Court allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11 was set aside and the civil suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff was set down for hearing. ( 4. ) The respondent filed a suit, alleging that under an agreement between the parties, a partnership firm at will was constituted wherein plaintiff as well as defendants each had 20% share. Later on, appellant No. 1 and 3 each transferred their respective share in favour of the respondent. Disputes arose between the parties; therefore, respondent filed the suit as aforesaid. ( 5. ) Appellants resisted the suit by filing written statement. During trial, they also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of plaint basically on the ground that in absence of registration, the suit of respondent was not maintainable in view of the bar created under Section 69 of the Partnership Act. Application was opposed by the respondent. Learned trial Court, however, allowed the application by order dated 30.11.2007 and rejected the plaint. Said order was challenged by the respondent in appeal, which has been allowed by the lower appellate Court and the order of the trial Court was set aside, hence this appeal as stated above. ( 6. ) Shri Mukati, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the bar created under Section 69 of the Partnership Act is absolute, and without registration the suit filed by the respondent was not maintainable. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Motor Service V.H.B. Ventala Kamath reported in (1996) 10 SCC 88 . ( 7. ) After having heard learned counsel for the appellants at length and going through plaint which has been produced, this Court is of the opinion that this appeal has no substance. ( 8. ) A careful analysis of section 69 of the Partnership Act shows that the section is divided in four parts. ( 7. ) After having heard learned counsel for the appellants at length and going through plaint which has been produced, this Court is of the opinion that this appeal has no substance. ( 8. ) A careful analysis of section 69 of the Partnership Act shows that the section is divided in four parts. First part prevents a person from suing as a partner in a firm, either the firm or a person who is alleged to be a partner in the firm in respect of any right arising out of a contract of partnership or any other right conferred by the Act, unless the firm is registered. Second part deals with and prevents a similar suit against a third person in respect of any contract by the firm unless it is registered and it is shown that the persons suing on behalf of the firm are partners in the firm. Third part provides that above embargo would be attracted to a claim of set-off or other proceeding to enforce a right arising from a contract, but fourthly, it also carves out exceptions to the embargo in two cases, viz. (1) enforcement of any right to sue for the dissolution of the firm or for accounts of a dissolved firm or any right or power to realise the property of a dissolved firm; and (2) the power of an official assignee, receiver or Court for realisation of property of an insolvent partner. Thus, it is clear that a suit for dissolution of the firm and rendition of accounts is not barred and can be filed and perused notwithstanding absence of registration of the partnership firm. The purpose of registration firm is to protect the interests of third parties and disability is confined to suits to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by the Act. The non-registration of the firm does bar other classes of suit. ( 9. ) Now coming to the decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, suffice it to say that in that case the question for consideration was, whether a reference made to arbitrator under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 by a partner of unregistered firm was maintainable? Answering the question in affirmative, their Lordships held that the exception engrafted in sub-section (3) exclude the restriction/prohibition and are intended to effectuate the exceptions enumerated therein. Answering the question in affirmative, their Lordships held that the exception engrafted in sub-section (3) exclude the restriction/prohibition and are intended to effectuate the exceptions enumerated therein. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, reliance placed on the Krishna Motors decision supra, in no way advance the case of appellants. ( 10. ) Thus, we find from a bare perusal of plaint averments, prima facie provisions of Order VII Rule 11 are not attracted to the case in hand. The present appeal, therefore, does not give rise to any question of law much less substantial question of law. Accordingly the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed summarily. ( 11. ) Before parting with the case, we may point out that we have analysed Section 69 of the Partnership Act in the context of Order VII rule 11 and the views expressed are based on reading of plaint averments to see whether it is hit by Order VII Rule 11 and as such is liable to be rejected at the threshold without trial. Observations made hereinabove are only prima facie observations and are not the findings given on the merit of the case pending before the trial Court. In this view of matter, observations made hereinabove shall not come in the way of the trial Court while adjudicating merit of the case in accordance with law. ( 12. ) In view of the foregoing discussion, appeal is dismissed summarily without any order as to costs. Order accordingly. Appeal dismissed.