Partnership firm registration is a mandatory precondition to sue; later registration cannot cure a void plaint or justify fresh-suit liberty.

Registration of a partnership firm was treated as a mandatory condition precedent for instituting a suit of the relevant nature; where the firm was unregistered on the date of filing, the plaint was void and subsequent registration did not cure the defect. The bar under the Partnership Act was therefore substantive and went to maintainability, leaving the court without jurisdiction to proceed. On withdrawal, leave to sue afresh under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC was unavailable because non-registration was not a formal defect but a root-level bar to the suit. The suit was dismissed and permission to file a fresh suit was refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a suit by a partnership firm was maintainable when the firm was not registered on the date of institution; (ii) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action.

Issue (i): Whether a suit by a partnership firm was maintainable when the firm was not registered on the date of institution.

Analysis: Registration of a firm under the Partnership Act is a condition precedent to the institution of a suit of the relevant nature. The defect arising from non-registration on the date of filing is not cured by subsequent registration during pendency of the suit. A plaint presented by an unregistered firm in such circumstances is void and the Court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial. The cited decisions were applied to hold that the bar under the Partnership Act is mandatory and goes to the root of maintainability.

Conclusion: The suit was not maintainable and was void because the firm was not registered on the date of institution.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action.

Analysis: Leave under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure is available only where the suit must fail by reason of a formal defect or analogous sufficient grounds. Non-registration of the firm was held not to be a formal defect but a substantive bar affecting the very right to sue. Since the plaint itself was void, permission to withdraw with liberty to file a fresh suit could not be granted.

Conclusion: The request for withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh suit was refused.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were dismissed as the suit was found to be void for want of registration of the firm on the date of institution, and no leave to institute a fresh suit was permissible.

Ratio Decidendi: Registration of a partnership firm is a mandatory condition precedent to the institution of a suit by the firm, and non-registration on the date of filing renders the plaint void and bars withdrawal with liberty where the defect is substantive rather than formal.

---