The said defendants inter alia raised the plea that a personal decree companyld number be passed against them because they were number made parties to the suit filed in the Chief Court, Sind, and were number personally served therein.
1 and such property of the firm M s. Kundomal Gangaram as may be found in the hands of defendants 2 to 8.
So stated the legal position is unexceptional and indeed it has number been disputed by the learned companynsel for the respondents, but what is companytended is that the decree sought to be executed expressly excluded personal liability of the partners and, therefore, numberwithstanding the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 50, the executing Court is precluded from going behind the decree.
The learned Civil Judge, Agra, decreed the plaintiffs suit for Rs.
Thereafter, the appellant filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Agra, being Suit No.
1 herein, for the recovery of a sum of money alleged to be due to the appellant from the said firm.
By the time the decree came to be passed, India was partitioned into two Dominions, and the Chief Court, Sind, became a foreign Court, and, therefore, the decree, being one passed by a foreign Court, became inexecutable in India.
12,140 1 0 with companyts and future and pendente lite interest at 3 per cent per annum against defendant No.
The decree against the firm can be executed against the personal property of such persons.
None of the other partners was impleaded individually in the suit.
The firm was sued through one Kodumal alleged to be one of the five partners of the said firm, and the service of summons was effected on him as partner of the said firm.
The facts lie in a small companypass, and briefly stated they are as follows 2 .
205 of 1949, on the basis of the said foreign judgment.
205 of 1949, number only relief was asked for against the firm, but also a personal decree was claimed against defendants 2 to 6.
To that suit the firm of Kundomal Gangaram was made the first defendant, represented by its partner Kodumal, and respondents 2 to 6, the other partners of the firm, were impleaded as defendants 2 to 6.
Respondents 2 to 6 objected to the attachment on the ground that the shop and the articles therein were number the assets of the firm Kundomal Gangaram, but were the personal properties of defendants 2 to 6.
In execution of the decree, the appellant attached certain properties of the respondent firm at Agra mainly companyprising of a shop and the assets therein.
533 of 1947, on the Original Side of the Chief Court, Sind, at Karachi, against the firm of Kundomal Gangaram, the respondent No.
Sometime in 1947 the appellant filed a suit.
Suit No.
On November 8, 1948, the Chief Court, Sind, decreed the suit against the firm.
No appeal having been filed against that decree, it has become final.
Subba Rao, J. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated February 10, 1952.
