JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This is a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for setting aside the judgment and order dated 04.09.2013, and the decree dated 18.09.2013, passed by the learned District Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Money Appeal No.3/2006. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of the respondent. 2 The case of the petitioner as submitted by the learned counsel is as follows; That the respondent/plaintiff, a firm and authorized dealer of M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Tractors and the Assam Plain Tribes Development Corporation (which hereinafter referred to corporation) had a deal for supply of tractors along with the standard accessories to members of Assam Plain Tribes under the scheme by which the corporation was to pay the price of the tractors directly to the firm and the money so paid was to be recovered from the beneficiary. The petitioner in this case being one of those selected beneficiaries was supplied by the respondent/plaintiff firm one Mahindra B-275 DI Tractor with standard accessories on 02.12.2009. Again on 14.02.2000, as a part of the scheme the respondent supplied to the petitioner a “Disc Plough” valued at Rs. 26,350/-. Finding that the “Disc Plough” was not as per the standard quality, the respondent was asked to replace the same by the petitioner. Instead, the respondent filed a Money Suit No.17/2000 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior) Division, Tezpur for recovery of a sum of Rs. 28,246/- from the petitioner with pendente lite and future interest @ 15% p.a on the amount. The petitioner filed a written statement along with counter claim claiming a sum of Rs. 2,663/- along with a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as cost. 3. The learned Civil Judge after hearing the parties framed as many as twelve issues and the same are reproduced herein below:- 1. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether the plaintiff-Firm has right to file the suit? 3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 4. Whether the plaintiff supplied on 14-02-2000 to the defendant Disc Plough on credit amounting to Rs. 26,350/- 5. Whether the defendant was granted a loan of Rs. 4,10,000/- by the Assam Plain Tribes Development Corporation Ltd. towards purchase of a Tractor under scheme financed by the National Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes Finance & Development Corporation? 6. 4. Whether the plaintiff supplied on 14-02-2000 to the defendant Disc Plough on credit amounting to Rs. 26,350/- 5. Whether the defendant was granted a loan of Rs. 4,10,000/- by the Assam Plain Tribes Development Corporation Ltd. towards purchase of a Tractor under scheme financed by the National Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes Finance & Development Corporation? 6. Whether the Tractor and accessories supplied to the defendant by the plaintiff did not include Plough Disc and not part of the standard accessories to be delivered along with the Tractor and sold on credit separately to the defendant? 7. Whether the plaintiff realised the price of the Disc. Plough from the Assam Plain Tribes Development Corporation directly on the date of delivery of the Tractor? 8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to realise a sum of Rs. 28,246/- with interest from the defendant as claimed in the suit? 9. Whether the plaintiff realised an access amount of Rs. 2,663/- from the defendant and therefore, whether the defendant is entitled to receive the said amount? 10. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree is claimed in the suit? 11. Whether the defendant is entitled to a decree as claimed in the counter claim? 12. To what other reliefs the parties are entitled? 4. The learned Civil Judge, after having recorded his findings in all the issues, came to the conclusion that the respondent was entitled to a decree for realising/recovering the sum of Rs. 26,350/- from the petitioner, who was the defendant in the suit. Not satisfied with the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, (Senior) Division, Tezpur, the petitioner herein went on appeal and the appeal was heard and disposed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur by the impugned judgment and order dated 04.09.2013. The following is the operative portion of the order;- “Hence, for the discussions made above, I find that the appeal requires to be disposed of on the following grounds:- 1. The suit is remanded to the learned trial court with the direction to dispose of the suit within a period of two months from the date of receipt. 2. The learned trial court will consider the issue of maintainability and non-joinder of necessary party. 3. A decision will be given on the counter claim of the defendant separately as per provision of CPC. 2. The learned trial court will consider the issue of maintainability and non-joinder of necessary party. 3. A decision will be given on the counter claim of the defendant separately as per provision of CPC. With the above directions the suit is partly allowed on the issues discussed, and remanded back to the learned trial court of the Civil Judge, Sonitpur. Appeal is disposed of accordingly on contest without cost.” 5. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come to this Court as stated above under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the judgment and order of the first appellate court as follows:- That the first appellate court after recording its findings on the issue of maintainability of the suit of respondent/plaintiff, instead of giving a decision in accordance to findings, remanded the suit to the trial court for further trial. Therefore, has erred in law as such the same needs to be corrected by this court. The learned counsel by way of expounding his submission pointed out the finding of the first appellate court as follows; That the petitioner in his written statement had challenged the suit on different grounds and one of them was that the suit suffered from non-compliance of the provisions of section 69 of Indian Partnership Act read with Order XXX of CPC. However, the trial court totally ignored this issue. Therefore, the same was raised again before the appellate court and the appellate court came to a finding that the suit was not maintainable on that ground. The learned counsel drew my attention to para-7 of the judgment of the first appellate court to support his contention. The relevant portion of Para 7 of the said judgment to which the learned counsel particularly referred to is given here below; “………………………………… In this case the plaintiff/respondent had in the evidence stated that the said document of Registered Partnership Deed was in existence and was in his residence but why the same was not produced has not been explained. This document is the most vital document to prove of this case and is the very root of filing of the suit as per provision of ORDER 30 of the CPC. The issue that was framed was whether the plaintiff firm had right to file the suit. This document is the most vital document to prove of this case and is the very root of filing of the suit as per provision of ORDER 30 of the CPC. The issue that was framed was whether the plaintiff firm had right to file the suit. When the very duty of the plaintiff/respondent to file the suit in his proper form was not complied as per law, the suit itself is not maintainable and the learned trial court holding that as the learned counsel for the parties did not press the issue at the stage of their respective and also from the case record there was nothing to hold that the plaintiff firm has no right to file the suit is not maintainable. This issue being a matter of fact and law it is the duty of the court to decide as per provision of law. Hence for the discussions above, I find that the suit is not maintainable and this issue of maintainability is decided against the respondent/plaintiff and in favour of the appellant/defendant. The corresponding ground taken by the appellant that the learned trial court failed to frame proper issue in respect of the maintainability of the suit regarding Registered Partnership Firm is tenable. The ground No.10 in this context is also proved in view of the discussion made above, that the plaintiff firm was not properly constituted and registered one and that the plaintiff/respondent had no authority to file the suit is decided in favour of the appellant”. 6. Gathering from the submission of the learned counsel and the judgment of the first appellate court, the relevant portion of which is given above, what I am given to understand is that the original suit of the respondent was not maintainable as the plaintiff did not prove by showing any document that the firm Rajdhani Tractor Agencies (respondent/plaintiff) was a registered partnership firm and Mr. Dilip Patni who claims to be one of the partners in the firm was authorized to file the suit by the other partners. Before, I decide the issue raised by the petitioner in this case, it would be proper to reproduce here the contents of section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Section 69. Effect of non-registration. (1) ………….. Dilip Patni who claims to be one of the partners in the firm was authorized to file the suit by the other partners. Before, I decide the issue raised by the petitioner in this case, it would be proper to reproduce here the contents of section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Section 69. Effect of non-registration. (1) ………….. (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. The provisions of sub-section 2, given above makes it amply clear that when a suit is filed by or on behalf of a firm against any third party, the first condition for the suit to be maintainable is, the firm should be a registered firm and the second condition to be fulfilled is, the name of the person suing should be that of the person or persons recorded in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm. 7. It appears from the judgment of both the trial court and appellate court that the partnership registered document, and any document showing that Mr. Dilip Patni, who filed the original suit was/is one of the partners in the firm, were produced before trial court. As stated above, when a suit is filed on behalf of the firm the first requirement as per the provision of sub-section 2 of section 69 of Indian Partnership Act, is to produce such documents as to show that the firm sought to be represented is a registered partnership firm and secondly, the person filing the suit is one of the registered partners in the firm. This requirement of the law is mandatory, and once it is found that this mandatory requirement has not been fulfilled the suit ought to be dismissed at threshold on that ground alone. In this case, as stated above, Mr. Dilip Patni who filed the original suit in the name and on behalf of the firm has failed to discharge his statutory obligation as stated above. Therefore, the first appellate court was right in having concluded that the suit was not maintainable. In this case, as stated above, Mr. Dilip Patni who filed the original suit in the name and on behalf of the firm has failed to discharge his statutory obligation as stated above. Therefore, the first appellate court was right in having concluded that the suit was not maintainable. The only error committed by the appellate court was that he fell short of exercising his lawful jurisdiction by remanding the suit instead of taking a call in accordance to his finding. The learned appellate court should not have remanded the suit as of routine matter, specially, when he had arrived to a finding on that issue and came to a conclusion. Therefore, this Court in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, set aside that portion/aspect of the first appellate court’s judgment and direct the first appellate court to exercise its jurisdiction as per law. It may not be out of place to reproduce here the relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Raptakos Brett And Co. Ltd vs. Ganesh Property reported in 1998 (7) SCC 184 , on the subject discussed above for reference; “It is also true that once on such construction of this provision the bar under Section 69(2) of the Act gets attracted, then the logical corollary will be that the said provision being mandatory in nature would make the suit incompetent on the very threshold.” 8. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the first appellate court, inspite of having arrived at the finding, that counter claim of the petitioner/appellant was not considered by the trial court, and also, inspite of the fact that sufficient materials were available before it to decide the issue, failed to exercise its jurisdiction to decide on the same and, wrongly remanded the suit to the trial court. Hence, the first appellate court has committed error in law. On perusal of the judgment of the trial court, I find no recording of findings, relating to the counter claim of the petitioner/appellant. Further, nothing has been disclosed before this court, to show that there were sufficient materials, before the first appellate court, to decide on the counter claim of the petitioner/appellant. On perusal of the judgment of the trial court, I find no recording of findings, relating to the counter claim of the petitioner/appellant. Further, nothing has been disclosed before this court, to show that there were sufficient materials, before the first appellate court, to decide on the counter claim of the petitioner/appellant. Therefore, I find no error having been committed by the first appellate court in remanding the case to the trial court for deciding on that issue. 9. In view of what has been stated above, the petition is partly allowed. Accordingly, the first appellate court is directed to decide on the issue of maintainability of the suit of the respondent as per the findings recorded in the impugned judgment and thereafter, remand the case to the trial court for deciding on the counter claim of the petitioner. No order as to cost.