Law: Partnership Act, 1932

Section: 69

Keywords: Result: Appeal Dismissed JUDGMENT ' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J. -Vide order dated 27.11.2015 leave in the matter was granted to consider: - ' whether a suit for dissolution. And rendition of accounts of a partnership firm, which is not registered would be barred in terms of section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932 and that the plaint should be rejected on that account under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC and/or(ii) if the suit is not for dissolution of partnership or rendition of accounts of an unregistered firm whether such suit is barred by law and thus the plaint could be rejected. 2. This appeal arises from the following facts:- that the appellant filed a suit for declaration that respondent No. 1 be bound to act. As per the partnership deed, specific performance (of the partnership deed), rendition of accounts, cancellation of document (Waqaf-ul-Aulad) and permanent injunction (hereinafter the "suit") on the basis of an unregistered partnership deed dated 22.02.1986 executed by and between the appellant and the respondent No. 1 (real brothers) for the purpose of establishing and running a school. Upon the refusal of the respondent No. 1 to pay profits after,2006 and upon learning that the school property of the partnership had been transferred by the respondent No. 1 to the respondent No. 2 (his real son) through a Waqaf-ul-Aulad in 2004, the appellant was constrained to file the suit. Vide order dated 28.4.2009 the Civil Court at Lahore accepted the respondents' application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC and rejected the plaint on the basis that the suit is barred under section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932 (the Act) as the noted firm is not registered with the concerned authority. This order has been upheld by the learned High Court through the impugned judgment dated 13.9.2011 when challenged by the appellant in RFA 279/2009. 3: The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the impugned judgments are against the law and facts. He submitted that the firm did not exist at the time of institution of the suit and therefore the appellant could sue for rendition of accounts under sub-section (3) of section 69 of the Act. He stated that the bar of section 69…