1. AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.---The plaintiff, which is admittedly an unregistered firm, has filed the suit against the defendants and an objection has been taken by the defendants Nos.1 and 2 that the suit is barred under section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932. The defendants Nos.1 and 2 have moved C.M.A. No.932 of 2007 under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. For rejection of the plaint. During pendency of that application the plaintiff has made an application (C.M.A. No.929 of 2007) seeking amendment of plaint by substituting the name of the plaintiff with that of its partners. Arguments on both these applications were heard at some length. The question as to whether an unregistered firm can file a suit against the third party will remain open as the learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court titled as Ardeshir Cowasjee v. KBCA reported in PLD 2003 Karachi 314; wherein in identical manner the partners of an unregistered firm were allowed to be substituted in a suit filed by the unregistered firm. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants Nos.1 and 2 has relied upon the case of Abdul Hamid v. Riaz Brothers Commission Agents reported in 1986 CLC 242 and the case of Aslam Awan v. Ras Tariq Chaudhary reported in 1985 CLC 2514.
2. Under these circumstances, I allow C.M.A. No.929 of 2007 subject to all just exceptions, and dispose of C.M.A. No.932 of 2007 filed by the defendants Nos.1 and 2 with the observation that at the time of framing of issues a preliminary issue shall be framed as to whether the partners of an unregistered firm can file a suit against the third party and arguments on this legal issue would be heard after settlement of issues. The plaintiff shall amend the title of the plaint. Adjourned. Ad interim order dated 27-11-2006 shall continue with the restriction contained therein. The other pending applications would be listed by the office on the next date.