RAMNATH GOENKA Vs. AMARCHAND AND MANGALDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MESSRS. Amarchand and Mangaldas acted as attorneys for the firm of Messrs. Chunilal Murliprasad in certain litigation, and they obtained a pay order against their clients on December 8, 1939. This pay order has the same effect as a decree; under the rules of this Court a solicitor is entitled to resort to summary procedure to have his bill of costs taxed against his client and to get the Judge in Chambers to pass an order directing payment against his client. Messrs. Amarchand and Mangaldas having resorted to the summary procedure obtained this order as already pointed out on December 8, 1939. On December 16, 1943, Messrs. Amarchand and Mangaldas applied under Order XXI, Rule 50 of the Civil Procedure Code, for adjudication that Ram-nath Goenka was a partner in the firm of Messrs. Chunilal Murliprasad. This application became necessary as Ramnath Goenka had neither been served with the pay order, nor had his liability as a partner of the firm been adjudicated in those proceedings.

(2.) AN issue was tried whether Ramnath Goenka was a partner or not. The trial Court held that he was not a partner. There was an appeal against that decision, and the Court of Appeal held on August 12, 1952, that Ramnath Goenka was a partner of the firm, and gave leave to Messrs. Amarchand and Mangaldas to execute the pay order against him. Pursuant to this order Messrs. Amarchand and Mangaldas applied for execution of the pay order on October 3, 1952. The matter came on before Mr. Justice Coyajee; and the learned Judge held that Messrs. Amarchand and Mangaldas were entitled to proceed with the execution. From that order this appeal is preferred by Ramnath Goenka.

(3.) THE only point which has been urged before us by Mr. M. V. Desai on behalf of the appellant is that the decree or the order of December 8, 1939, is barred by limitation, and that it is not competent for Messrs. Amarchand and Mangaldas to apply to execute that decree.