( 1 ) THE petitioner is the decree- holder. She obtained a decree for a sum of Rs. 8270 with interest on Rs. 6,000 at the rate of 6 per cent p. a. from 6th August, 1976, to the date of realisation and also costs. The decree was obtained against the respondent Sri Satyanarayana Finance Corporation, vayalpad, represented by the managing partner B. Nataraja Reddi". This decree was sought to be executed order. Order 21, rule 50 (1) (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure by way of execution under Order 21, rule 37, Civil Procedure Code, by detaining the managing partner B Nataraja Reddi in civil prison on the allegation that the judgment- debtpr has means to pay, but has been evading payment thereof. An objection has been filed, contending that the decree was obtained against a partnership firm, but not against the partners individually and that therefore, the ezecutioa cannot be ordered for arrest of the managing partner under order 21, rule 37 and section 51 of Civil procedure Code. That objection had prevailed with the executing court and dismissed the execution. Against this order, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

( 2 ) SRI Sundararajan, learned Counsel for the petitioner-decree holder contends that in the suit the partnership was represented by its managing partner B. Nataraja Reddy, who appeared in pursuance of the summons issued in the suit and he contested the claim. Therefore, he is representing the partnership firm by operation of Order 21, rule 50 (i) (b) read with rule 7 of Order 30 of Civil Procedure Code, and as such he is liable for execution by way of detention in the civil prison. In support of this contention he relied upon a decision of the supreme Court, reported in Gajendra narain Singh v. Johrimal Prahlad Rai.

( 3 ) SRI V. Raghunatha Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contends that no notice individually was taken to Nataraja Reddy, as a partner. No decree was obtained against Nataraja reddy, as a partner. The decree is only a simpliciter against the firm. Therefore, nataraja Reddy cannot be detained in a civil prison by execution. In support of his contention he relied upon a decision of the supreme Court, reported in Topanmal chhetamal v. M/s. Kundomal Gangaram and others.

( 4 ) IN view of these respective contentions, the question that arises for consideration is, whether B. Nataraja Reddy, who represented the firm as a managing partner, is liable for detention in a civil prison by way of execution under Order 21, rule 37 read with section 51 of Civil Procedure Code, when the decree was obtained against him?

( 5 ) IN order to appreciate these contentions, it is necessary to extract the relevant provisions. Order 21, rule 50 (1), Civii Procedure Code, postulates, that"where a decree has been passed against a firm, execution may be granted- (a) against any property of the partnership; (b) against any person who has appeared in his own name under rule 6 or 7 of order 30, or who was admitted on the pleadings that he is, or who has been adjudged to be, a partner; (c) against any person who has been individually served as a partner with a summons and has failed to appear: provided that nothing in his sub-rule shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the provisions of section 30 of the indian Partnership Act, 1932". (sub-sections 2 to 5 are not necessary for the purpose of this case. Hence omitted ).

( 6 ) THE procedure in suits by or against a firm and persons carrying on business in the names of others has been provided under order 30, Civil Procedure Code, Order 30, rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, provides: where persons are sued as partners in the. name of their firm, the summons shall be served either- (a) upon any one or more of the partners; or (b) at the principal place at which the partnership business is carried on within India upon any person having, at the time of service, the control or management of the partnership business there, as the Court may direct, and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document