JAGAT RAM AND SONS Vs. BODH RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the medium of this application Smt. Sulakshna Rani, Arun Kumar Jain, Rajesh Kumar Jain & Navneet Kumar Jain, hereinafter called the applicants, seek to be included as plaintiffs in addition to the plaintiffs already on record. It is averred in the application that these applicants have purchased a portion of the suit property from the partners of the plaintiff -firm, therefore they are entitled to be made plaintiffs under 0.22 R. 10 CPC. Certified copies of sale deeds indicating their respective share from the suit property are also produced by Mr. A. V. Gupta.

(2.) THE suit is brought on behalf of the plaintiff -firm. Names of the partners were disclosed by the plaintiffs at the instance of the defendants, The four partners disclosed are Jagat Ram, Ram Krishan Gupta, Ram Lal and Ram Gopal. Ram Lal partner is said to have died on 9 -7 -1983 & his share has devolved on Kanaya Lal in whose favour he has executed a will.

(3.) JAGAT Ram partner has 29% share in the suit property. He has sold his 10% share to Rajesh Kumar one of the applicants. Ram Gopal has 19% share in the suit property. He has sold 7% to Navneet Kumar, one of the applicants. Ram Krishan has 23% share. He has sold 8% to Navneet Kumar, one of the applicants. Kanaya Lal who has succeeded Ram Lal along with Bipen Kumar. Raj Rani & Smt. Neeti Gupta have sold 14% share to Arun Kumar & 15% to Sulakshana Rani, applicants. In this manner the applicants claim to be mortgagees of part of property and claim that they be added as plaintiffs. On behalf of the plaintiff -firm, Jagat Ram one of the partners has also signed the CMP along with the applicants. The defendants have filed objections to this application. It is contended that 0 30 of the CPC does not permit assignees to substituted as partners of the firm - By virtue of assignment firm is deemed to be dissolved and it cannot be said to have been reconstituted with the assignees. Firm cannot bring a suit or be sued without its being registered under section 69 of the partnership Act. 0.22 R.10 CPC is said to be inapplicable to the present case which is governed by specific provisions of CPC.