DAVIS Vs. NIMMI RAPHAEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER/decree holder obtained an order for realisation of money for service done against a partnership firm and two of its partners in O.P.No.1279 of 1998 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur (for short, "the Forum"). That award was being executed in the court of learned Additional Sub Judge-II, Thrissur in E.P.No.546 of 2002. In that petition, legal representatives of T.V.Antony who is stated to have been representing the partnership firm before the Forum were impleaded as respondent Nos.4 to 9 and the petitioner wanted to proceed against them as well. Respondent Nos.4 to 9 resisted execution claiming that they are not partners of the firm either before or after the death of respondent No.1 and that the order itself is unexecutable since T.V.Antony died on 22.07.1999 while, the Forum passed award only on 03.01.2002, ie. against a partnership firm which was not represented by anybody and hence it is a nullity so far as the partnership firm is concerned. That objection was upheld by the executing court and execution to the extent it related to respondent Nos.4 to 9 was refused. PETITIONER was directed to take steps if any against judgment debtor Nos.2 and 3. The order to the extent it concerned respondent Nos.4 to 9 is under challenge. According to the learned counsel, the order of executing court is not sustainable.

(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel and gone through the order under challenge I do not find reason to interfere. It is not in dispute that Shri T.V.Antony who is said to have been representing the partnership firm (respondent No.1 before the Forum) expired on 22.07.1999 and that without impleading any of respondent Nos.4 to 9 in whatever capacity it be, Original Petition was disposed of by the Forum on 03.01.2002. It is only in E.P.No.546 of 2002 that respondent Nos.4 to 9 were impleaded for the purpose of execution. There is no case that respondent Nos.4 to 9 are partners of the firm either before or after the death of respondent No.1 on 22.07.1999. Nor is there any case that respondent No.1 was impleaded in the Original Petition in his personal capacity so that his liability to the extent of his assets held by respondent Nos. 4 to 9 could be proceeded against. I do not find reason to interfere with the order of learned Additional Sub Judge. If petitioner has other remedies available against respondent Nos.4 to 9 he can work out the same as provided under law, if he is entitled to that course. Revision Petition is dismissed with the above observation.