The learned District judge further held on the evidence that Singh was number a partner of the defendant firm.
The original summons would numbermally be with Singh but he did number care to produce it before the District judge, Patna.
In appeal against the order of the District.
Singh companytended that he was number a partner of the defendant firm and that he was number liable to satisfy the debts of that firm that he was number served with summons in the suit that he had appeared in the suit in which the decree was passed number as a partner, but in his individual capacity and that he had informed the Court that he was number a partner of the defendant firm.
Judge rejecting the application for execution against singh the High Court at Patna had that on the facts proved the plaintiffs were entitled as of right to execute the decree under O. 21 rule 50 1 b against Singh.
The High Court accordingly reversed the order passed by the District judge and directed execution to proceed against Singh.
With certificate under Art.
The plaintiffs then applied for execution of the decree claiming that numberorder of the Court granting leave to execute the decree was necessary.
The Court rejected the application for leave to withdraw the appearance and also rejected the application of Mr. Tilak for an adjournment of the suit.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 5, 1958, of the Patna High Court in Misc.
The Court directed that the suit be transferred to the list of companymercial causes and gave directions for the progress of the suit.
133 1 a granted by the High Court, this appeal has been preferred by Singh.
By companysent of the advocates the chamber summons for directions stood adjourned by order of the Court for a fortnight.
Order 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the manner in which suits may be filed by or against firms.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Court declined to accede to the oral request and directed that appropriate proceedings to withdraw the appearance may, if so advised, be taken by Singh.
S. Pathak, Rameshwar Nath and S. N. Andley, for the respondents.
Summons of the suit was served upon one Gajendra Narain Singh hereinafter referred to as Singh at Road 8, R Block at Patna Bihar as a partner of the defendant firm.
Appeal No.
On September 9, 1953 Mr. Tilak a, advocate for Singh addressed a letter to the Attorneys of the plaintiffs requesting them to companysent to an adjournment of the x x x suit to enable Singh to file his written statement.
20,320/ with companyts and interest.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, Yogeshwar Prasad and U. P. Singh, for the appellant.
252/55.
When the suit was taken up for hearing before the City Civil Court on November 27, 1953 Mr. Tilak again appeared and submitted that his client on whom summons was served in the suit, was number a partner of the defendant firm and prayed that he be allowed to withdraw the appearance which was filed without protest.
The District judge, Patna, by his order dated May 12, 1955 held that the execution companyld number be directed against Singh relying upon sub clauses b or c of rule 50, O. 2 1, for the question whether he was a partner of the defendant firm was left undecided by the City Civil Court.
268 of 1960.
A chamber summons for directions for trial of the suit as a companymercial cause was thereafter served on Singh.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J. M s. johri Mal Prahald Rai hereing after referred to as the plaintiffs commenced an action against M s. Tirhut Umbrella Works a firm carrying on business at Laheriasarai in the State of Bihar in the City Civil Court, Bombay, for a decree for Rs.
Mr. D. B. Tilak an advocate who was engaged by Singh, filed on April 22, 1953 in the Court a Vakalatmama signed by Singh authorising him to act, appear and plead in the suit.
November 13.
The Court recorded the evidence of a witness for the plaintiffs and admitted certain companyrespondence tendered by the plaintiffs, and decreed the suit as prayed.
The decree was forwarded by the Registrar of the City Civil Court, Bombay to the Court of the District Judge, Patna, with a certificate of number satisfaction.
When the chamber summons for directions was taken up for hearing on September 24, 1953 Mr. Tilak informed the Court that his client Singh claimed that he was number a partner of the defendant firm, and orally prayed for an order permitting withdrawal of the appearance filed in Court.
The plaintiffs then applied for leave to execute the decree against Singh under O. 21, rule 50 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
