JUDGMENT
B.N. Agrawal, J.
1. This application has been filed against the impugned order by which the petition under Section 8(1) of the Station Act for appointment of an Arbitrator filed on behalf of the opposite party has been allowed
2. The only point raised on behalf of the petitioner in this revision application is that the application under Sections (1) of the Arbitration Act was not maintainable as the firm in question was not registered under the Indian Partnership Act. Therefore, the application was barred under Section 69 of the Partnership Act and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. For appreciating the contention of the learned Counsel it will be useful to quote Section 69 of the Partnership Act, which reads as under:
(1) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this Act shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be or to have been a partner in the firm unless the firm is registered and the person swing is or has been shown in the Register of Firms as a partner in the firm.
(2) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of a firm against any third natty unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm.
(3) The provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply also to a claim of set off or other proceeding to enforce a right arising from a contract, but shall not affect–
(a) the enforcement of any right to sue for the dissolution of a firm or for accounts of a dissolved firm, or any right or power to realise the property of a dissolved firm.
Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 69 of the Partnership Act create a bar to the maintainability of the suit by or against an unregistered firm. Sub-section (3) of Section 69 of the Partnership Act lays down that the Provisions of Sub-section (1) and (2) shall also apply to a claim of set off or other proceeding to enforce a right arising from a contract but the bar under Sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 69 of the Partnership Act shall not apply to a proceeding which is for enforcement of right to sue for dissolution of a firm or for accounts of a dissolved firm nor any right or power to realise property of a dissolved firm.
3. It will be relevant to quote paragraph 15 of the petition filed under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration Act, which reads as follows:
15. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is essential that an Arbitrator may be appointed and the dispute and difference regarding the said partnership business which have cropped up be referred to an Arbitrator appointed by this Court authorising them to dissolve the partnership business, to settle the accounts, to distribute the assets of the said dissolved business as indicated and deliver possession of the shop premises in which Vishnu Trading Company is running.
4. From a bare perusal of the application under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration Act, especially Paragraph 15, quoted above, it would appear that the present proceeding was for dissolution of partnership business. Therefore, in view of the express provisions contained under Section 69(3), the bar imposed under Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 69 of the Partnership Act shall not apply to the present proceeding.
5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Chaddra Gupta v. Kajaria Traders (India) Ltd. and of the Court in the case of Uma Shanker Bajaj and Ors. v. Sri Narain Das 1983 BBCJ 455 : 1983 PLJR 485. In my view these decisions have no application to the facts of the present case as in those cases, the proceeding was not for dissolution of partnership.
6. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that the Court below has not committed any error much less any error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order.
7. In the result, the revision application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. But, in the circumstances of the case, I direct that the parties shall bear their own costs.