Mohammad vs M. Narayana Ramachandra Mallayya

Govinda Menon, J.—The plaintiff in O. S. 58/59 on the file of the Munsiff''s Court, Parur presented a petition under O. XXX, R. I CPC for direction to file a statement of the names and address of the persons who are the partners of the defendant firm. The defendant contended that the plaintiff has not brought the firm as defendant on the party array. This contention was accepted by the learned Munsiff and the plaintiff was called upon to amend the plaint. The plaintiff then filed a review petition. The cause title of the plaint was M. Narayana Ramachandra Mallayya and Company represented by Narayana Mallayya and Ramachandra Mallayya. When summons was issued one P. Janardan Naik received the summons and filed written statement styling himself as a partner of the firm of M. Narayana Ramachandra Mallayya and Company and in the written statement filed by him he stated that the two names shown as representing the firm in the plaint are fictitious persons and that the partners are himself and two others. The learned Munsiff, therefore, reviewed his previous order that Narayana Ramachandra Mallayya and Company had not been brought on record, but he held that under O. XXX the plaintiff has to show on the party array the names of two persons who were partners of the firm, for, the court can only then call upon such a person made a party to the suit to furnish the names of the partners of the firm sued against and called upon the plaintiff to amend the plaint so as to include the names of the two persons who were partners of the firm thereby satisfying the requirements of O. XXX, R. 1. This revision petition is filed against the aforesaid order.

The view taken by the learned Munsiff is wrong. O. XXX, R. 1 reads as follows:

1) Any two or more persons claiming or being liable as partners and carrying on business in India may sue or be sued in the name of the firm (if any) of which such persons were partners at the time of the accruing of the cause of auction; and any party to a suit may in such case apply to the court for a statement of the names and addresses of the persons who were, at the time of the accruing of the cause of auction, partners in such firm, to be furnished and verified in such manner as the court may direct.

(2) x x x

So the firm as such need alone be described as a plaintiff or defendant and the addition of the words like "represented by A, a partner or by B, the Manager" does not alter the character of the suit as a whole by or against the firm in describing the cause title of the suit. The name of the defendant should be the name of the firm only without the addition of the name of the partners, although addition of such names do not matter in the least and can be treated as mere surplusage.

Reference may be made to the decisions in Motilal Jasraj of Nasik, Manager and owner of the shop Fogmal Jasraj v. Chandmal Hindumal (A. I. R. 1924 Bom. 155), Bhadreswar Coal Supply Co. Vs. Satis Chandra Nandi and Co. and Others, and Mohammadali Kunju v. Abraham George ( 1953 K. L. T. 104).

What Order XXX says is that the firm must consist of two or more persons, but nowhere is it stated that they must be named in the plaint, as the learned Munsiff thinks. Under Order XXX, R. 1 a plaintiff suing a firm is entitled to know who the persons are who constitute that firm and the information cannot be withheld. The information is, of course, necessary so that plaintiff may know who will be personally liable in execution for the satisfaction of his decree. (Vide the decision in Bridges & Co. v. Shames Din & Co. (47 Indian Cases 422). The order of the learned Munsiff is, therefore, set aside. There will be no order as to costs.