Padmavathi Finance Corporation, a registered partnership firm being aggrieved of the decreeing the suit as against defendants 2 and 5 only and dismissing the suit as against the other defendants without costs had preferred the present appeal.

2. The plaintiff, the present appellant filed the suit O.S.No.58 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nandyal as against M/s. S.V. Metal Unit, a registered firm, the first defendant and the partners shown as defendants 2 to 9 for recovery of a sum of Rs.70,175/- being the principle and the interest due on the strength of a promissory note. The learned Subordinate Judge, Nandyal, on appreciation of the evidence of P.W.1, D.W.1 and D.W.2, Exs.A1 to A4 and Exs.B.1 to B.10, ultimately decreed the suit against defendants 2 and 5 only and dismissed the suit against the other defendants. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff-Padmavathi Finance Corporation, a registered firm presented the appeal on the file of the learned District Judge, Kurnaool and inasmuch as the same was returned to be represented to proper Court, the said appeal had been presented before this Court and thus, this appeal is coming up for hearing today.

3. Contentions of Sri R.V. Prasad:-

Sri R.V. Prasad, the learned counsel representing the appellant had specifically pointed out to the promissory note in controversy and the contents thereof and would maintain that when the partners representing the partnership firm executed the promissory note in question, the partnership firm and also the partners of the firm would be liable and decreeing the suit partly against only two partners and dismissing the suit against the firm and the other partners cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also pointed out to Sections 19, 20 and 22 of the Indian Partnership Act and Sections 26 and 27 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and would maintain that the trial Court had not appreciated these provisions properly. The learned counsel also would maintain that a cursory glance of the contents of the promissory note itself would go to show that the promissory note in question had been executed by the partners representing the firm and on behalf of the firm and on different interpretation which had been given by the trial Court in relation thereto cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also would further maintain that the trial Court totally erred in observing that Ex.A.2 does not contain the words that the loan was taken on behalf of the firm and the mere fixing of the stamp of the firm in the operative portion would not bind the firm and on the other hand, the promissory note should have appreciated that D2 and D5 executed the promissory note on behalf of the first defendant-firm and by duly signing the promissory note on behalf of the firm and in their capacity as partners of the firm and further the learned counsel would point out that D2 and D5 had described themselves as partners of the first defendant firm while executing the promissory note and the individual names had not been mentioned. The learned counsel also commented relating to the findings recorded by the trial Court in the context of the non production of the relevant account books and would maintain that in the light of the clear evidence of P.W.1 such findings cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also had further taken this Court through the other evidence available on record, the evidence of P.W.1 and also D.W.1 and D.W.2 and further had taken this Court through Exs.B.1 to B.10 as well and would maintain that the mere fact of the change of one of the partners for the purpose of borrowing loans under Ex.B.2 would not alter the situation in any way and it is not their case that this change was within the knowledge of the plaintiff firm. At any rate, by such internal changes, the partnership firm cannot escape the liability in the light of the different provisions of the Indian Partnership Act. Hence, the learned counsel would conclude that in the facts a