C J RAPHEL Vs. PUNNERI SREEDHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is filed against the order dated 11.2.2015 in A.A.No.51 of 2011 of the Appellate Authority (LR), Kannur. The said appeal was filed by some of the partners of a registered partnership firm as aggrieved persons. Their claim was that they were not made as parties to the earlier proceedings. Along with the appeal, they filed a petition to condone the delay of 1002 days in preferring the appeal. The Appellate Authority dismissed the application to condone the delay in filing the appeal and consequently, the appeal was also dismissed.

(2.) Three questions came up before me for consideration. The first question is regarding competency of maintaining an appeal by some of the partners who claimed to be not parties to the proceedings under challenge, passed against the partnership firm represented by its Managing Partner. Secondly, whether the abovesaid partners who are not named in the order under challenge, either in a representative capacity or otherwise, would be able to maintain an appeal being partners of the firm; and lastly, whether there is sufficient reason for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal.

(3.) The landlord is a registered partnership firm having four partners. Proceedings were initiated against the partnership firm represented by its Managing Partner. The appellants in A.A.No.51 of 2011 are the other partners of the firm. Only the Managing Partner alone was representing the firm in the Land Tribunal. Their case is that even prior to the initiation of the said proceedings, the relationship in between the partners and the Managing Partner became strained and the dissolution proceedings were initiated. Just before the passing of the order by the Land Tribunal the firm was dissolved, but the other partners were not made as parties to the proceedings in spite of the dissolution of partnership. Once a proceeding was initiated against a partnership firm represented by either the Managing Partner or any of the partners, it would be deemed to be valid till it was legally dissolved or the person who represents the partnership firm was retired or when there is change in the constitution of the partnership deleting the said person. In other words, the proceedings initiated against the registered partnership firm would be legally and perfectly maintainable even though the partnership was subsequently dissolved and all the partners are bound by the order or decree or judgment that may be passed in that proceedings. So, the non-impleadment of other partners in the proceedings is not fatal and the order passed would be binding on all partners irrespective of whether the names of all partners were made mentioned in the proceedings either as respondents or otherwise. The only question to be looked into is whether the partnership firm was represented by the proper person authorized in that behalf under the partnership agreement or deed, as the case may be. So the partners who were not made as parties to the proceedings cannot be termed as strangers to the proceedings. The partnership firm, at the time of its initiation, was registered. As such, they are deemed to be parties to the proceedings. So, they cannot file an appeal as a third party overlooking the abovesaid legal position.