https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282136 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. en-us Fri, 03 Nov 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Jul 2019 16:45:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282136 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 03 Nov 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282136