JAGAT RAM & SONS Vs. L BODHRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants Satish Gupta and Surrender, Gupta have made this application for being impleaded as defendants to the suit on the ground, that besides defendant No: 1 L Bodhraj, they are also partners in the firm defendant No: 2, Messrs, Devi Dayal Sitaram Kanak Mandi, Jammu. The plaintiff has" objected to this application simply on the ground that the applicants being already on the record through defendant No: 2, the application is misconceived.

(2.) IN my opinion, the application is not well, founded. It is beyond controversy, that a firm independently of its partners has no existence in the eye of law. It is nothing more than a compendious description of the partners who constitute it. This is amply borne out from the language of Order 30. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides, that a suit, may be brought by or against the partners in a firm in the firmâ„¢s name. Therefore, a suit against a firm is in reality, a suit against its different partners. By impleading a firm alone as a party to a suit, all its partners would be deemed to have been (Impleaded to it. It, therefore, follows that the applicants are already on the record by virtue of the firm, defendant No: 2, being on the record, in which they happen to be partners. The plaintiff has not claimed any relief against them independently of their character as partners in the firm. They in the eye of law being already on the record, their further impleadment would be preposterous.

(3.) RELIANCE has, however, been placed on behalf of the applicants on Rule 6 of Order XXX of C.P.C. This Rule reads: "Where persons are sued as partners in the name, of their firm, they shall appear individually in their own names, but subsequent proceedings shall, nevertheless, continue in the name of the firm." It has been argued that the expression "they shall appear individually in their own names" clearly implies that all the partners have to. be individually brought on the record because unless they are so brought, they would not be entitled to appear individually in their own names. This interpretation placed upon Rule 6 is clearly erroneous. This could not have been the intention behind enacting the Rule. A firm not being a legal entity competent to appear as a firm provision has been made in Rule 6 that it may also appear through one or more of its partners, though all proceedings will be continued in the name of the firm itself. Rule 6 is merely an enabling provision enacted for the purpose of giving effect to Rule 1. It does not create an independent right in a partner "to be individually impleaded as a defdt. to the suit. The interpretation sought to be placed on Rule 6 by the applicants counsel would bring it into conflict with Rule 1 which provides that a plaintiff may dispense with impleading each partner individually by impleading the firm alone. Reliance by the applicants counsel on Rule 6 is thus clearly misplaced.