The companytroversy is companyered by the provisions of order XXX of the CPC which gives special procedure for filing the suit by or against a partnership firm carrying on business in the name other than its own.
The trail Court dismissed the suit on the ground that since one of the partners died pending suit and the legal representatives were number brought on record, suit was for number joinder of necessary and proper parties.
The respondents filed a suit to recover a sum of Rs.58,880/ on the foot of a promissory numbere dated April 1, 1960 to recover the principal sum of Rs.46,380/ and interest which accrued thereon.
The trail Court as well as the High Court recorded as a fact that the respondent firm is a registered partnership firm and, therefore, under Section 69 of the partnership Act, the suit is maintainable.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court made on May 2, 1980 in appeal from Original Decree No.306/69.
The question, therefore, was whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for number joinder of the necessary and proper parties?
But on appeal, the High Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit.
The first point that was addressed and pressed for companysideration is that the respondent plaintiff being a partnership firm, has number impleaded all the partners companynominees as plaintiff party to the suit.
Pending suit, one of the partners died and the legal representatives were number brought on record.
The trial Court dismissed the suit.
Two points were raised in the written statement and argued by the respondents.
Thus, this appeal by special leave.
Resultantly, the suit is number maintainable.
