INTERNATIONAL CONTINENTAL CAOUTCHOUE COMPAGNIE Vs. MEHTA AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It has frequently come to my notice that there is widespread misconception as to the correct course to be followed, where a suit is filed under Order 30, Civil P.C., against a firm, by persons who have been served as partners, but who deny that they are partners. The question arises in a practical form when such persons file, as is often done, written statements on their own behalf in no way putting forward a defence to the suit, but denying that they are partners. In some instances I have found as many as three such written statements simultaneously on the record. The case eventually comes to trial with some person or other defending the suit on behalf of the firm and with other written statements on the record on behalf of the persons who have entered appearance under protest denying that they are partners. Or, as I have also found, there are written statements by such persons, but none on behalf of the firm, with the result that the hearing of the suit which is undefended is delayed, as by reason of such written statements it is treated as a defended suit, though no partner has appeared. This is not in conformity with the latter part of Order 30, Rule 8.

(2.) This in my opinion is entirely irregular, and accordingly I took the opportunity when this case appeared in the list for directions a week ago of adjourning it for the purpose of having the matter argued in order to make an attempt to put the procedure on a more correct basis.

(3.) I shall presently give such directions in this case as may be necessary. The position at present is that the plaintiff firm, under Order 30, Rule 3, obtained leave to serve and served three persons as partners, it having been decided that under that rule the directions of the Court must be obtained as to the method of service to be followed. If the method prescribed in each particular case is followed and service is so effected, then prima facie there has been service upon the firm. I apprehend that in this case, in so far as any partner who has not entered appearance under protest has been served, there has been service upon the firm.