9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (10) TMI 513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court made on May 2, 1980 in appeal from Original Decree No. 306/69. 2. The respondents filed a suit to recover a sum of ₹ 58,880 on the foot of a promissory note dated April 1, 1960 to recover the principal sum of ₹ 46,380 and interest which accrued thereon. The trial Court dismissed the suit. But on appeal, the High Court all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, the suit is maintainable. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that since one of the partners died pending suit and the legal representatives were not brought on record, suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. The controversy is covered by the provisions of Order XXX of the CPC which gives special procedure for filing the suit by or against a partnership firm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b-rule (2) is not relevant for the purpose of this case. By operation of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of Order XXX, despite the embargo under Section 45 of the Indian Contract Act, it is not necessary that the legal representatives of the deceased partner who dies whether before institution of the proceedings or during the pendency of proceedings, should be substituted as a co-nominee party plaintiff/de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
