(1.) This is an. appeal by the judgment-debtors who claimed to be the representatives of one Dinabandhu Pal against an order of the Subordinate Judge refusing their application to the effect that a decree obtained by the defendant-firm cannot be executed against certain properties which were being sought to be sold in execution of the decree. The decree was obtained by the respondent-firm against a firm named Bonamali-Dinabandhu Pal. Certain properties were attached before judgment and the decree-holders now seek to enforce their decree by the sale of those properties. The firm of Bonamali-Dinabandhu Pal carried on business as dealers in piece goods at Dhamari Bazar in the district of Dacca. The objections raised by the appellants in the Courts below were twofold. The first was that the firm of Bonamali-Dinabandhu Pal was a one-man firm the owner of which was Dinabandhu Pal alone. When the suit was pending in the High Court, Dinabandhu died and a decree was made against the firm Bonamali-Dinabandhu Pal after the death of the sole proprietor of the firm Dinabandhu Pal. The decree made by the High Court was, therefore, void. Although it purported to be a decree against the firm, it was really a decree against Dinabandhu Pal deceased and as no decree could have been passed against the dead man, the decree is void as having been made without substituting his heirs and it cannot, therefore, be executed. The second objection was that the properties against which execution is sought to be levied were not properties belonging to the firm and, therefore, execution cannot proceed as against those. The learned Subordinate Judge has rejected both the objections raised by the appellants before him. He had the plaint in the suit filed in the High Court before him and he held that the decree was against the firm of Bonamali-Dinabandhu Pal. As an executing Court he could not he behind the decree and he relied for that proposition on the case of Gorachand Haldar V/s. Profulla Kumar Roy . With regard to the second point he was of opinion that under Order 21, Rule 50, the plaintiff firm is entitled to execute their decree against the properties which were attached before judgment during the lifetime of Dinabandhu Pal who raised no objection whatsoever to the attachment whether these properties were of the defendant firm or the personal properties of Dinabandhu Pal.
(2.) The learned advocate for the appellants contends that the appellants are entitled to succeed in their appeal on either of the two grounds. The first ground that he urged was that the decree was void as having bean passed against a dead man. It is hardly necessary to repeat that the rule allowing a person to sue a firm in the name of the firm is only a short way of describing the defendants. The suit is really brought against the members of the firm. There are certain other provisions in Order 30, Civil P.C., relieving the plaintiffs from taking certain steps with regard to service of notice or the substitution of the heirs of a partner if he happens to die during the pendency of the suit. The relevant rule that we need refer to at present is Rule (4), Order 30. That rule, however, applies in terms where the members of a firm consist of two or more persons. The question is what rule should apply if a firm consists of only one person, or in other words, if one person carries on business in the name or style other than his own name. This is covered by Rule 10, Order 30 which provides that any parson carrying on business in a name or style other than his own name, may he sued in such name or style as if it were a firm-name; and so far as the nature of the case will permit, all rules under this order shall apply.
(3.) The question is what would happen if a person carrying on business in the name of a firm dies during the pendency of the suit. It cannot be disputed that if a man dies before any suit is instituted against him, the suit would be in fructuous as having been brought against the dead man who used to carry on business under an alias. As I understand it, the position of a person carrying on business in a firm name is only that of a person who has got an alias and a plaintiff desiring to sue him can sue him in his other name. If during the continuance of the suit that person dies, it is necessary, in my opinion, to bring his legal representatives on the record to have a proper decree made in the suit. If the plaintiff fails to do so, then the decree is made against a dead man, having a different name from his own proper name, and in that case the decree would be an absolute nullity. The point raised in this case is free from authority and Dr. Sen Gupta says that after his research he has not been able to find any case actually governing the position. It appears, however, that there is a cognate rule under the Rules of the Supreme Court in England which is Order 48-A, Rule 11. No decided case has been cited in the last edition of the Annual Practice of 1929 on the question as to what would happen on the death of a person carrying on business in a firm-name. The learned Editors give the following note at p. 862: After the death of a person carrying on business in a name other than his own, no action can be brought against the firm e.g., a firm's debt eo nomine. Proceedings would have to be instituted against the executors.