SHAMBHU DAYAL Vs. CHUNNILAL DEVKINANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition of revision under Section 115, Civil P. C. by the defendant is directed against the order dated August 1, 1978, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Alwar, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the defendant's application dated July 21, 1978 and consequently refused to hold that the suit had abated.

(2.) The facts material for the decision of this petition are simple. M/s. Chunnilal Devkinandan, a partnership firm registered as such under the Partnership Act, and its three partners, namely, Devkinandan, Chunnilal and Brijendra Kumar, arrayed as plaintiffs 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively, sued Shambhu Dayal, the petitioner herein and three others (respondents 4, 5 and 6 herein) for recovery of Rs. 11516.86. During the pendency of the suit, Chunnilal died on June 5, 1976. His legal representatives were not brought on the record within the prescribed period of limitation. The surviving plaintiffs represented to the trial court that since they were suing as parties and the suit had been brought in the name of the firm, it was not necessary to join the legal representatives of Chunnilal deceased as parties to the suit. The trial court agreed and consequently ordered on January 28, 1977, that Chunnilal's name be deleted from the array of plaintiffs in the suit. Subsequently, on July 21, 1978, the defendants made an application for an order that since the legal representatives of Chunnilal deceased had not been brought on the record, within ''the prescribed period of limitation, the suit had already abated. By its order, dated, August 1, 1978, the trial court dismissed this application on the view that since the cause of action pleaded in the suit had accrued to the firm and that since in fact the suit had been brought in the name of the firm, it Was not necessary to join the legal representatives of Chunnilal deceased as party to the suit,

(3.) After going through the impugned order and hearing Mr. Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant I am satisfied that this suit has been brought in the name of the firm and as such it is fully covered by the provisions of Order XXX, Rule 4, C. P. C. That being so, the legal re-presentatives of Chunnilal deceased need not have been joined as parties to this suit.