HARSHAMAL SHIVBUX Vs. RAMKISHAN DAS SAGARMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge. Churu, dated April 4, 1977, whereby he allowed the application of Girdharilal (defendant No. 3) under Section 29 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (V of 1920) (hereinafter referred to as "the F. I. Act"), And consequently stayed the proceedings of the suit.

(2.) A few relevant material facts giving rise to the present revision petition may briefly, be stated as under. The plaintiff M/s. Harshamal Shivbox instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 18,916.95 p. against M/s. Ramkishan-das Sagarmal and its partners and ex-partner and the legal representatives of the ex partners. It was alleged by the plaintiff-firm that Sagarmal Nathmal, Poosraj alias Pushpraj, Girdharilal, Hulashchand and Mst. Ratni Bai were the partners of the defendant-firm and this firm continued its business up to St. 2020 at Bombay. After St. 2020, the firm, stopped its business Sagarmal and nathmal expired in St. 2020 and St. 2021, respectively. Poosraj alias Pushpraj was excluded from the partnership firm on 5-4-1360. The plaintiff impleaded the legal representatives of Sagarmal and Nathmal and also impleaded Poosraj as defendants. Besides that, the partners of ,he defendant-firm were impleaded as defendants. The plaintiff has alleged that not only the partners of the firm, but also the legal representatives of the deceased partners of the firm, as well as the ex-partner Poosrai are ail liable for the payment of the suit money. The plaintiff-firm prayed for a decree against the firm, its present partners, ex-partner, as well as legal representatives of the deceased partners.

(3.) Two separate written statements were filed by two sets of defendants. One written statement was filed by defendants Nos. 2 to 5, namely, Poosraj alias Pushpraj, Girdharilal, Mst. Goda-wari, and Mst. Rsmibai and the other has been filed by Hulashchand, Narayan Prasad, and Smt. Naybadi Bai. Tn hoth the written statements it was pleaded that the defendant-firm was closed on account of losses and insolvency proceedings are pending for adjudicating the defendant-firm, as insolvent, and on this basis a plea was taken that the suit cannot continue.