JUDGMENT : A. Muhamed Mustaque, J. 1. These writ petitions are filed by two reconstituted partnership firms along with their partners seeking a direction to the Registrar of Firms to record the change in the constitution of the firms. Admittedly, the change of reconstituted firms were intimated to the Registrar after 15 days period. Rule 4(2) of the Kerala Partnership (Registration of Firms) Rules, 1959 (for short the ‘Rules’) mandates such intimation to be given within 15 days from the date of reconstitution. The Division Bench of this Court in Kuriachan Chacko and Others vs. Registrar of Firms, Thiruvananthapuram, 2015 (4) KHC 491 after adverting to Rule 4 as above, in a challenge regarding the validity of the Rule upheld its validity and observed that such prescription of outer limit under the Rule is based on the source of power referable under Section 71 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (for short the ‘Act’). Under Section 71(2)(e), the State Government is having power to regulate the filing of documents received by the Registrar. In fact, the learned Single Judge of this Court in O. Balanarayanan and Others vs. The Registrar of Firms, Trivandrum and Another, AIR 1984 Ker. 20 held that the State Government cannot make a rule prescribing a rigid time limit and Rule 4(2) is ultra vires the powers of the State Government under Section 71(2) of the Act. That decision was overruled in Kuriachan Chacko's case (supra). 2. However, the Division Bench was silent as to the consequence that is to be followed if an application is filed out of time. Therefore, the question arises on the legal effect of an intimation given after the period of 15 days as referred under Rule 4(2) of the Rules. For this, it is necessary to refer various provisions of the Act. 3. The registration of a partnership firm is not compulsory and it is only optional. Section 58 of Chapter VII states about the application for registration and procedure for registration, which states that the registration of a firm will be effected at any time by sending by post or delivering to the Registrar of the area in which such business firm is situated or proposed to be situated. Section 58 of Chapter VII states about the application for registration and procedure for registration, which states that the registration of a firm will be effected at any time by sending by post or delivering to the Registrar of the area in which such business firm is situated or proposed to be situated. Section 59 states that the Registrar on being satisfied with the compliance of Section 58 shall record and make an entry of the statement in the register called the Register of Firms. The Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Jayalakshmi Rice and Oil Mills Contractor Company, AIR 1971 SC 1015 opined that the effective date of registration is the date on which the application was presented. Therefore, even if the partnership firm is formed on a date anterior to the date on which it was presented, the effective date of registration is the date on which such application was presented before the Registrar. 4. Rule 4(1) refers to the forms of intimations and notices to be given under Sections 61, 62 and 63 of the Act. Section 61 refers to noting of closing and opening of branches. Section 62 refers to noting of changes in names and addresses of partners. Section 63 refers to the recording of changes in and dissolution of a firm. Rule 4(2) also refers to the intimations and notices to be given under Section 60 as well. Rule 60 refers to the recording of alterations in firm name and principal place of business. It mandates that such intimation shall be sent or given to the Registrar together with fees within 15 days from the date of occurrence of such event related to any of the statutory provisions as above. 5. The problem presented in these writ petitions is on the legal consequence of notices and intimations given after 15 days. Rule 4(2) does not state that if intimation is not given within 15 days, such intimation will have to be rejected. Since no consequences are referred, it cannot be stated that the prescription of the outer limit of 15 days is mandatory. However, the court cannot also ignore the purpose of fixation of 15 days outer limit. Certainly, the rule making authority prescribed such outer limit for certain purposes. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer Section 69 of the Act. However, the court cannot also ignore the purpose of fixation of 15 days outer limit. Certainly, the rule making authority prescribed such outer limit for certain purposes. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer Section 69 of the Act. Section 69 of the Act explains the effect of non-registration. Section 69(2) states about the right of enforcement arising out of partnership contract and explains that no right arising out of contract can be enforced by a partner against the firm, if the firm is not registered. Section 69(2) will give some light on the impact of the outer limit prescribed under Rule 4(2). Section 69(2) reads as follows: “No suits 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.” 6. On a harmonious reading of Section 69 with Rule 4(2), it can be seen that if the reconstitution of the firm or any other event as referred under Sections 60, 61, 62 and 63 is intimated within 15 days, that will relate back for validation from the date on which such event took place and continuity of the registration could be enjoyed without any break. However, if the intimation is given after 15 days, the effective date of intimation would come into effect only from the date on which such intimation is given. If the Rules are read in the light of the substantive provisions under the Act as referable under Sections 58 and 59, this is the only possible reconciliation between the Act and the Rules to make the very purpose of the registration as workable. 7. Therefore, this Court has to hold that there is no bar for the Registrar in accepting an intimation given under Rule 4(2) of the Rules after 15 days. However, the event, which is the subject matter of such intimation is given after 15 days, it cannot relate back to the date on which the event took place and it will be given only from a date on which such intimation was given. However, the event, which is the subject matter of such intimation is given after 15 days, it cannot relate back to the date on which the event took place and it will be given only from a date on which such intimation was given. If the event is intimated within 15 days, that will relate back the date on which the event took place and all actions of the firm within that period would be saved. However, if the reconstitution of the firm is not intimated within 15 days, they cannot have the benefit of registration unless and until that is intimated to the Registrar and it will be given effect only from the date on which such intimation is given. 8. In view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kuriachan Chacko's case (supra), the challenge laid by the petitioners as against the Rule 4(2) must fail. The Registrar shall make necessary entry regarding intimation by giving effect to such entry from the date on which it was presented before the Registrar. 9. The writ petitions are disposed of as above.