Prayagchand Hariram vs Deota Cloth Centre And Ors.
2003 Latest Caselaw 997 Bom

JUDGMENT

S.G. Mahajan, J.

1. This Second Appeal is preferred, by the original plaintiff, i.e. a partnership firm, challenging the judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge, Amravati, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 241 of 1985.

2. The plaintiff - firm by name Prayagchand Hariram brought a suit against the defendants, who are the present respondents, for the recovery of price of goods (cloth) sold. The firm is registered with the Registrar of Firms at Nagpur, and the place of business shown in the registration certificate is Pulgaon, District Wardha. However, the firm was carrying on business at Amravati also through Amravati Branch. In the registration certificate, Amravati was not shown as one of the places of business of that firm at the relevant time when the transaction in this suit took place. The learned counsel for plaintiff/appellant informs that subsequently Amravati is also shown as a principal place of business in the registration certificate. The position prevailing at the time of transaction and filing of suit shall be taken into consideration.

3. The learned 8th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amravati, before whom Regular Civil Suit No. 363 of 1984 brought by the plaintiff - firm came up for hearing, decreed the claim of the plaintiff - firm for the recovery of Rs. 3,470/- with a further direction to pay the interest at the rate of Rs. 12 per cent per annum from the date of suit till the realisation. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm.

4. The lower Appellate Court, i.e. the Additional District Judge, Amravati, reversed the judgment and order of the Trial Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 241 of 1985. The issue on the point of registration of firm was framed by the lower Appellate Court as below :

"Whether, the Plaintiff is a duly registered firm insofar as its business at Amravati Branch is concerned ?"

This issue was answered by the lower Appellate Court in negative and the Court held that on this count the suit is untenable. In this view of the matter, the lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff -firm.

5. In this Second Appeal, none appeared for defendants/respondents. So, the appeal was heard ex parte, that is, in the absence of respondents. Shri J. J. Chandurkar, the learned counsel, was heard for appellant.

6. The learned Additional District Judge in his judgment observed that the registration certificate reveals the name of the firm as 'Prayagchand Hariram', Pulgaon, District Wardha; but this certificate does not disclose any other place of business of the firm in the relevant column of the certificate. The learned Judge posed a question whether the plaintiff - firm, having registered office at Pulgaon, District Wardha, can lawfully extend its activities in the name of the same firm at any other place of business without giving such information at the time of registration. The learned Judge held that the plaintiff's Branch at Amravati cannot be regarded as a registered firm or the place duly registered place of business of the plaintiff - firm, as no such information is given in the register of firms. The learned Judge also observed further while concluding that the whole tenor of the documents and the evidence of PW 1 make it explicit that the shop at Amravati is a separate entity. In the view of the learned Additional District Judge, this shop stands on par with an unregistered firm. On this basis, the learned Judge held that the suit is untenable.

7. So far as the firm which has brought the suit by name M/s. Prayagchand Hariram is concerned, it is a firm registered with the Registrar of Firms, Nagpur. The place of business shown in the registration certificate at the relevant time was Pulgaon, District Wardha. This can be taken as a principal, place of business. In the column of other places of business, Amravati is not shown. The learned Additional District Judge, Amravati, placed reliance on the provision of Section 58 of Indian Partnership Act which requires that the details of other places where the firm carries on business are also to be supplied to the Registrar of Firms. This was not done by the plaintiff - firm. But merely on that basis, it cannot be said that Amravati Branch of the plaintiff - firm is on par with the unregistered firm. The requirements of Section 69(2) of Partnership Act are only that the firm should be registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm. The provision of Section 58 of the Partnership Act shows that there can be more than one place of business of the firm. The place where the principal business is carried on is in the category of principal place of business and the other places are in the category of other places where the firm carries on business. The information has to be given to the Registrar of the area in which any place of business of the firm is situated or proposed to be situated. In the present case, the statement under Section 58 is given to the Registrar of Firms at Nagpur. The further requirement is, however, that the information as regards the other places of business also should be supplied. As per the learned Additional District Judge, since this requirement was not fulfilled, the suit is untenable. However, it can be seen that non-mentioning of the other place of business in the registration certificate is merely a mistake. Thereby it does not take away the character of a firm as a registered firm if it is duly registered with the Registrar of the area in which any place of business of the firm is situated. In the present case, Pulgaon is the principal place of business and it comes under the area of the Registrar of Firms at Nagpur. So, that requirement is fulfilled. On this point, it would be useful to refer to the following para in Girdhari Lal v. Spedding Dinga Singh and Co., :

"Even if it were supposed, though there is really no justification for the supposition in view of the aforesaid unrebutted statement of Bawa Sundar Singh, that Chamba was also one of the places of business of the firm, mere omission of name of one of the places of business of the firm amounted at the worst to a mistake which was capable of rectification under Section 64 of the Act but which did not take away from the fact that the firm itself was registered."

Thus, the ratio of the above case is that the registration of firm is not affected by the omission of name of one of the places of business of firm in the registration certificate.

8. The learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit on the sole ground of maintainability. There was no finding on merits on the claim of the plaintiff-firm. The case, therefore, shall have to be remanded to the Court of Additional District Judge, Amravati, for the decision on merits.

9. In the above view, the Second Appeal is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amravati, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 241 of 1985, whereby he dismissed the suit, are set aside. The case is remanded back to the Court of Additional District Judge, Amravati, with a direction that the learned judge shall hear the matter on merits and decide the appeal in accordance with law.