P L D 1961 (W (PLP)

KHAMISANI, J.‑--This is an 'application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

2. The facts are that Messrs Jumani Bros. filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,447‑13‑0 in the Court of the Sub‑Judge, Sukkur. The suit was decreed on 12th May 1958. Muhammad Zaman Khan the applicant‑defendant, filed an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Sub‑Judge in the Court of the District Judge at Sukkur. The District Judge dismissed the appeal by his judgment dated 29th April 1959. Second Appeal was consequently filed before this Court on 1st June 1959 which was heard by me during the vacation. I had dismissed the appeal and passed an order on 3rd June 1959, which reads as under:‑ "The main contention of the learned counsel is that the suit was filed in contravention of provisions contained in section 69 of the Partnership Act. Section 69 of the Act contemplates that a suit, in case of a partnership firm, can be filed only if the firm is a registered one and can be filed only by a person who is or has been a partner of the firm and has been shown as such in the register of firms. It is admitted that the firm on whose behalf suit was filed was a registered firm and that the person who filed the suit on behalf of the firm was a partner of the firm on the date of the filing of the suit. I don't therefore see any non‑compliance of section 69 of the Act. The other point urged is that the evidence on record is not sufficient for the suit being decreed. According to the learned counsel burden of proof has not been sufficiently discharged so as to decree the suit. I cannot see my way to agree with the learned counsel. The Courts below have considered the evidence to be sufficient and I am not inclined to disturb concurrent finding of facts by two Courts below. I therefore don't see any substance in the appeal and there fore dismiss it."

3. This application for leave to appeal has been made solely on the ground that the suit filed by Messrs Jumani Bros. was not maintainable because of their incompetency to file the suit. Reliance was placed on section 69 of the Partnership Act and the point taken was that Muhammad Zaman Khan, the applicant- defendant, had dealings with the firm running under the name and style of Messrs Jumani Bros. & Co. The applicant had nothing to do with the firm Messrs Jumani Bros. According to the learned counsel for the applicant Messrs Jumani Bros. were not competent to file the suit and as such the decree passed against the applicant was not maintainable in law. The application has been resisted.

4. The position which appears to be on the record is that a firm in the name of Messrs Jumani Bros. & Co. was registered on 26th June 1952. Shabir Ahmad, Zamir Ahmad, Aziz Ahmad, Inayatali and Ghulam Kadir were the partners of this firm. Inayatli and Ghulam Kadir being minors, were admitted only to the benefit of the partnership. On 1st April 1956 Inayatali and Ghulam Kadir left the firm and Hussain Bakhsh and Golab were taken in as the partners of the firm. It is admitted that the name of the firm was changed from that of Messrs Jumani Brothers & Co. to Messrs Jumani Brothers only. An intimation of the change of the name of the firm and of the partners of the firm was given to the Registrar on 8th March 1957. The suit was, however, filed on 2nd January 1957. The learned counsel for the applicant urges that the firm which originally functioned under the name and style of Messrs Jumani Brothers & Co. no longer existed and that a new firm under the name Messrs Jumani Brothers had come into being. The new firm, according to him, had no locus standi to file the suit and as such the decree passed was illegal.

5. We do not see our way to agree with the learned counsel. The position all along has been that the firm initially was registered on 26th June 1952 under the name and style of Messrs Jumani Brothers & Co. and functioned as such till 1st April 1956. Two minor partners left the firm on 1st April 1956 and two more members were taken in the firm on that day. The name of the firm was changed from Messrs Jumani Brothers & Co. to Messrs Jumani Brothers. There is in law no restriction in regard to some of the members of the firm leaving the firm and some new members being taken in their place. There is also no restriction for changing the name of the firm. Merely because the name of the firm has been changed or some of the members of the firm have left and some new members have been taken in it does not necessarily mean that the firm has been dissolved A and that a new firm has been set up. The firm Messrs Jumani Brothers & Co. which has ultimately come into being as Messrs Jumani Brothers is not a new firm but is the same firm continuing under a different name. All the assets and liabilities of the firm Messrs Jumani Brothers & Co. have been shown to have been taken over by the firm which has subsequently been running under the name and style of Messrs Jumani Brothers. Much has been made of the intimation having been sent to the Registrar of the change of the partners and the name of the firm on 8th March 1957. Section 63 of the Partnership Act under which an intimation with regard to the change in the members of the firm and of the name of the firm has to B be given to the Registrar does not prescribe any time limit for sending such an intimation. The question involved in the matter simpliciter is whether the name of the firm had been changed before the suit was filed. The counsel for the applicant who has filed this application has admitted the position in ground No. 6 of the application. The ground No. 6 of the application reads as under:‑ "

6. That in the place of Aziz Ahmad and the two minors who were not partners but admitted to the benefits of the partnership the following are alleged to have joined as partners on 1‑4‑56 (a) Hussain Baksh (b) Golab. The firm's name was also changed to "Jumani Brothers" from 1‑4‑56: In view of this admission it cannot be argued that the name of the firm had not been changed before 2nd January, 1957 when the suit was filed. The mere fact that an intimation about this change was given to the Registrar subsequently does not alter the situation. The firm running under the name and style of Messrs Jumani Brothers, therefore, was fully competent to file a suit against the applicant and by filing such a suit there has been absolutely no contravention of the provisions contained in section 69 of the Partnership Act.

6. It is, however, admitted that Shabir Ahmad who filed the suit on behalf of the firm was a partner of the firm both when the firm was running under the name and style of Messrs Jumani Brothers & Co. and Messrs Jumani Brothers. We, therefore, see no contravention of the provisions of law and as such we are of the view that no substantial question of law is involved in order that a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court may be granted.

7. Apart from that the amount involved in the suit is Rs. 3, 447‑13‑0 and the matter is also not of great public importance. We, therefore, consider this matter to be not fit for granting a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and dismiss the application accordingly. K. B. A. Petition dismissed.