Section 69(2) Partnership Act compliance is mandatory; a defective firm suit cannot be treated as a mere formal irregularity.

Non-compliance with Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act was treated as a mandatory defect going to the root of the suit's institution, because the partnership firm sued through a person not shown as a partner in the register on the filing date. Such non-compliance was held not to be a mere procedural or formal defect within Order 23 Rule 1(3) CPC, and later registration or correction could not validate the suit as originally filed. A suit filed in breach of Section 69(2) was therefore not maintainable, and withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh suit was not sustainable; the matter was restored for disposal on the remaining contentions.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-compliance with Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act is a formal defect permitting withdrawal of the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit under Order 23, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, or whether such non-compliance renders the suit not maintainable.

Analysis: The suit had been instituted by a partnership firm through a person whose name was not shown as a partner in the register on the date of filing. The Court held that the requirement under Section 69(2) is mandatory and that its breach goes to the root of the institution of the suit. A defect of this nature is not a mere procedural irregularity or formal defect within the meaning of Order 23, Rule 1(3), and later registration or subsequent correction cannot validate the suit as originally filed. The precedents relied upon supported the view that a suit filed in contravention of Section 69(2) is not maintainable.

Conclusion: The non-compliance with Section 69(2) was not a formal defect, and the prayer to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit was not sustainable. The revision was allowed and the suit was directed to be restored for disposal on the remaining contentions.

---