ORDER : Defendant/applicant has filed the present revision being aggrieved by the order dated 8-10-2015 by which his application under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code has been rejected. 2. Non-applicant/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and dividend from the property. In the plaint it is pleaded that the plaintiff/defendant and Zakir (brother of defendant) formed a firm on 1-8-1973 in the name and style of M/s. Royal Shoe Stores to run the business of sale of shoes in Ratlam city. A partnership deed was executed on a Rs. 2/- stamp paper. By way of partnership they have decided to divide share in the profit. One of the partner Mohd. Sahir died on 15-12-1994 and on his death only the plaintiff and defendant became partners with a share of ½, : ½ in the firm. It is alleged that in the month of October, 2014 when the plaintiff demanded the accounts of the firm then he came to know that the defendant has dissolved the firm on 31-3-1992 and inducted his wife as partner, therefore, suit for declaration was filed that he is the partner of ½ share and entitled for dividend and further sought the direction that the defendant to remove his wife from the firm. 3. After notice defendant filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with section 151, Civil Procedure Code and prayed for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is time barred as no cause of action has arisen on 10-11-2014 and the plaintiff has not filed the suit properly as per the claim of the dividend. The said application was replied by the plaintiff. 4. Learned trial Court vide order dated 8-10-2015 has rejected the application, hence the present civil revision before this Court. 5. Shri Brajesh Garg, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant submits that learned trial Court has wrongly rejected the application as under section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 the suit is not maintainable against unregistered firm. He submits that admittedly the firm is not registered, therefore, by virtue of the bar created in the Partnership Act the suit is liable to be dismissed. He submits that admittedly the firm is not registered, therefore, by virtue of the bar created in the Partnership Act the suit is liable to be dismissed. He further submits that on the basis of the pleading in the plaint especially in para 8 the suit itself is time barred because according to the plaintiff the firm was dissolved on 31-3-1992 and suit was filed in the year 2015. When the plaintiff is claiming share in the firm he is required to quantify his claim and pay the ad valorem Court fees. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance over the judgment in the case of Loonkaran Sethia etc. v. Mr. Ivan E. John, reported in (1977) 1 SCC 379 : AIR 1977 SC 336 , Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 184 : AIR 1998 SC 3085 , Ashish Verma v. Neeraj Vyas, reported in ILR (2011) M.P. 2305 and Managing Director, Century Textile Industries Ltd., Mumbai v. Manju Gupta, reported in 2009 (2) M.P.L.J. 70 . 6. Per contra Shri Rajeev Bhatjiwala, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent submits that trial Court has not committed any error while rejecting the application. He further submits that provisions of section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act would not apply when the suit is in relation to the dispute between partners regarding settlement of accounts. The suit was filed within limitation and the plaintiff came to know about the dissolution of the firm on 10-11-2014 and the dispute of limitation is always a mix question of fact and law which is to be decided only after framing issues and evidence led by either parties. Under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code the suit is not liable to be dismissed unless it is specifically barred under section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. For ready reference section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act is reproduced below:— 69. Effect of non-registration. Under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code the suit is not liable to be dismissed unless it is specifically barred under section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. For ready reference section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act is reproduced below:— 69. Effect of non-registration. — (1) No suit to enforce a right arising from a 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. (2) 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, or (b) the powers of an official assignee, receiver or Court under the Presidency towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (3 of 1909) or the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (5 of 1920) to realise the property of an insolvent partner. (4) This section shall not apply,— (a) to firms or to partners in firms which have no place of business in (the territories to which this Act extends), or whose places of business in (the said territories), are situated in areas to which, by notification under (section 56), this Chapter does not apply, or (b) to any suit or claim of set-off not exceeding one hundred rupees in value which, in the Presidency-towns, is not of a kind specified in section 19 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (5 of 1882), or, outside the Presidency-towns, is not of a kind specified in the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (9 of 1887), or to any proceeding in execution or other proceeding incidental to or arising from any such suit or claim. 9. Under sub-section (1) of section 69 no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in the firm unless the firm is registered. Under sub-section (2) no suit is maintainable against any third party unless the firm is registered. Under sub-section (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 but shall not affect the enforcement of any right to sue for the dissolution of firm or for accounts of dissolved firm. In the present suit the plaintiff has sought the relief that he be declared as a partner of the firm with ½ share and entitled to get the dividend and demanded the accounts of the firm since 1-8-1973. The defendant has not disputed the partnership between the parties, therefore, there is an inter se dispute between the partners of the firm. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 69 bars a suit to be filed by a firm or against a firm against third party unless the firm is registered. Sub-section (2) says that no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted against any third party. The present case would fall under section (3) which specifically says that the provisions of sub-section (1) and (2) shall not apply to enforce any right to sue for dissolution of firm or for account of a dissolved firm. Sub-section (2) says that no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted against any third party. The present case would fall under section (3) which specifically says that the provisions of sub-section (1) and (2) shall not apply to enforce any right to sue for dissolution of firm or for account of a dissolved firm. The Apex Court in the case of Umesh Goel v. Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd., reported in (2016) 11 SCC 313 has held as under: 16. Keeping the above outcome of the legal position that can be derived from a reading of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of section 69 in mind we can draw further conclusions by making specific reference to clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (3) as well as the exceptions set out in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (4) as well. When under sub-section (3) which also relates to a ban concerning “other proceedings”, the law-makers wanted to specifically exclude from such ban such of those proceedings which are also likely to arise in a suit, but yet the imposition of ban of an unregistered firm need not be imposed. Keeping the said intent of the law-makers in mind, when we read clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (3), it can be understood that even though such other proceedings may be for the enforcement of any right to sue but yet if it is 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, the same can be worked out by way of a suit in a Court or by way of other proceedings in that suit and the same will not be affected by the ban imposed under sub-section (3). Similarly, any steps initiated at the instance of an official assignee, a receiver or Court under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (3of 1909) or the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (5 of 1920) to realise the property of an insolvent partner in a pending suit of a Court also stand excluded from the ban imposed under sub-section (3). Similarly, any steps initiated at the instance of an official assignee, a receiver or Court under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (3of 1909) or the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (5 of 1920) to realise the property of an insolvent partner in a pending suit of a Court also stand excluded from the ban imposed under sub-section (3). The specific exclusions contained in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (3), therefore, makes the position clear to the effect that even though such proceedings may fall under the expression “other proceedings” and may be intrinsically connected with a suit in a Court, yet the ban would not operate against such proceedings. 10. The application under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code is liable to be decided on the basis of pleading in the plaint alone. In the plaint the plaintiff has specifically stated that the firm has been wrongly dissolved by the defendant by removing the plaintiff and inducting his wife and not showing accounts to the plaintiff. He has demanded the accounts and share in the dividend from another partner of the firm, therefore, the registration of the firm is not necessary. The suit is very much maintainable and the trial Court has not committed any error while rejecting the application under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. The petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.