A. SAMBASIVA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE lower court rejected two applications filed, one to bring on record the new Managing Partner of the firm in place of the deceased managing partner representing the plaintiff firm and the other to condone the delay in bringing the new Managing Partner on record. This was in a suit filed by a firm against the present respondent who is the defendant, to recover a sum of money.

( 2 ) ONE difficulty is expressed on the basis of Rules 1 and 2 of order 30 of the C. P. C Rule 1 requires that any two or more persons claiming or being liable as partners and carrying on business in India may sue or be sued in ihe name of the firm. Since only the Managing Partner was purporied to be brought on record, this requirement of Rule 1 is not satisfied, rule 2 requires thai whenever there is a demand in writing by the defendant the names of all the partners of the firm shall be disclosed. It is true that only the managing partner filed the suit. When he died, the new managing partner is sought to be substituted in his place. In that sense, there is no strict compliance with sub-rule 1 of Ruie 1 of Order 30 C. P. C. At the same time, I must make a reference to Rule 4, whic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document