1. ' SALMAN HAMID, J.--- Through C.M.A. No,9230 of 2007 the defendant No,1 seeks rejection of plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. As according to it, very filing of the suit against such defendant was barred under section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932 (the Act), which essentially regulates the effect of non-registration of firm and its implication if a suit is brought by such unregistered firm against third party.
2. ' For the purpose of deciding the C.M.A. Under point on the touchstone of section 69 of the Act, brief history of the case has to be looked into.
3. ' The Plaintiff is a consumer of defendant No,1 and Electric Meter bearing No,BL-441 installed with the plaintiff by the defendant No,
1. A dispute in or about 1984-85 cropped up between the plaintiff and defendant No,1 when a false and fabricated F.I.R. Was lodged by the defendant No,1 against the plaintiff when ultimately the Magistrate concerned acquitted the partner of the plaintiff by holding that the defendant No,1 have failed to make out any case of theft of electricity as was alleged.
4. Again in or about October 1997 the defendant No,1 issued a bill to the plaintiff and the plaintiff being aggrieved by issuance of such bill preferred a petition before the Electric Inspector who after hearing, accepted the same by ordering that the defendant No,1 will disconnect and / or discontinue supply of electricity to the plaintiff till the matter is finally decided by the competent authority which, however was subject to the payment of current bills which were to be issued by the defendant No,1 in due course of time. Despite above order of the Electric Inspector, the defendant No,1 instead of issuing the bill of electricity consumed on the basis of actual consumption, kept issuing bills on average basis. Upon such receipt of bills, the plaintiff were again constrained to file an application before the Electric Inspector of defendant No,1, who on his turn and after hearing the parties restrained the defendant No,1 from issuing bill in the manner, aforementioned. Despite passing of the restraining orders, highhandedness of defendant No,1 did not stop. On or about 22-7-1998 the defendant No,1 disconnected the electricity of the plaintiff and upon vehement opposition it was restored. Thereafter on 29-7-1998 the defendant No,1 lodged F.I.R.
5. No,171/1998 against the plaintiff whereafter again Electric Inspector on or about 4 August, 1998 issued directions to the defendant No,1 to honour the orders passed by him. It was further ordered by the Electric Inspector concerned that the electricity of the plaintiff be restored. The defendant No,1 in order to humiliate and embarrass the plaintiff continued with the proceedings before the Special Magistrate 1st Class, KESC which proceeding however went in favour of plaintiff when the partner of the plaintiff was acquitted from the case registered in F.I.R. Nos.171/1998 and 156/1998.
6. Thereafter on or about 19 August 1998 the Electric Inspector issued notices to the plaintiff as well as the defendant No,1 for joint inspection of the Meter bearing No,BL-441 and after inquiry the same was found without any fault or error by the competent authority. Thereafter on or about 13 October 1998 the Electric Inspector was pleased to issue a letter to the defendant No,1 wherein Controller of Billing was advised to reverse average bill of the plaintiff for the month of September 1998 on by actual meter reading with further directions that the bill shall be issued on the basis of actual consumption as recorded in the meter under point. Consequently, upto February 1999 the defendant No,1 followed instructions of the Electric Inspector and kept issuing bills according to actual consumption but failed thereafter to issue revised bills. Thereafter the defendant No, 1 again started harassing the plaintiff by issuing bills on self assessment with the result that the plaintiff once again had to file complaint before the Electric Inspector. After hearing the Electric Inspector was again pleased to direct defendant No,1 not to disconnect electric supply of the plaintiff. Despite such directions, the defendant No,1 once again disconnected electricity of the plaintiff and extended threats that electricity will never be restored as Electric Inspector has no powers to order such restoration.
7. ' It was because of the above acts of omission commission on the part of the defendant No,1 that the present suit was filed by the plaintiff against them with the following prayers:--- "It is therefore, prayed that this honourable Court may kindly be pleased to pass judgment and decree against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff as under:--- A. Direct the defendant No,1 to restore the electricity of the plaintiff through meter No,BL-441, installed in the premises bearing No,F-335, SITE, Karachi, immediately. B. To declare that the plaintiff is entitled for the issuance of bill on actual meter reading and the defendant No,1 has no authority or power to disconnect the electricity, in respect of self-assessed bills and disputes which are sub judice before the Electric Inspector until and unless the inspector decides and settle the dispute. C.
8. To direct the defendant No,1 and/or any one else claiming or acting through or under it in respect of Meter bearing No,BL-441, installed in the premises bearing No,F-335, SITE, Karachi in accordance with the actual meter reading and any bill issued on self assessment or on average basis the payment of the said bills is not binding upon the plaintiff and consequently does not form an element for the disconnection of the electricity. D. Restrain the defendants, their agents, servants, officers, and or any one else claiming or acting through or under it from causing harassment and mental torture to the plaintiff by disconnecting the electricity vide meter No,BL-441, installed in the premises bearing No,F-335, SITE, Karachi.
9. E. That the defendant No,1 shall be restrained permanently from raiding or visiting the premises of the plaintiff without informing plaintiff of his intention in writing at least one week before. F. To decree the suit for the sum of Rs,50,00,000 as damages against the defendant No,1 and in favour of the plaintiff. G. Grant cost of the suit. H. Any other relief or reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deem fit in circumstances of the case."
10. 'The above narration of events would show that the present suit was filed by the plaintiff against defendant No,1 and other defendants because of their highhandedness as detailed above and not on the basis of any right emanating or arising from the contract entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants.
11. ' Bare provisions of section 69 of the Act stipulate that no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or confirmed by this Act shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of any person suing as partner in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be or could have been a partner in the firm unless the firm is registered and the person suing is or has been shown in the Register of firm as partner in the firm and that 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 party unless the firm is registered and the person suing is or has been shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm.
12. ' Neither the above case falls within the ambit of subsection (1) of section 1 of section 69 of the Act nor under subsection (2) of the referred section of the Act inasmuch as that the present suit has not been filed to enforce a right arising from a contract against any third party but the suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants because of the highhandedness and their acts of omission and commission.
13. ' Case laws cited by learned counsel for the defendants relate to the rights accrued to the parties under a contract which were denied by the Court because of the powers of section 69 of the Act and therefore, none of the cases are applicable in the present case.
14. ' Such being the position the listed application is dismissed with IF cost of Rs,10,000.