A final decree cannot be passed against a legal representative of a deceased debtor in his personal capacity, but only against the estate of the deceased debtor in the hands of the legal representative.

JUDGMENT :

1. This revision arises out of an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Madanapalle in E.A. No. 286 of 1992 in E.P. No. 16 of 1991 in I.A. No. 1079 of 1983 in O.S. No. 74 of 1976.

2. The second plaintiff is the petitioner herein. Petitioner is the son of the first plaintiff. The first plaintiff died during the pendency of the final decree proceedings. The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking dissolution of the partnership firm carried on by the plaintiffs and the defendants in the name of Sunanda Silk Industries and for a direction to the defendants to account for the profits and losses. The trial Court passed a preliminary decree on 23-4-1980 holding that the firm is dissoved from 24-11-1976 and the first plaintiff Sri D. Gurumurthi has to render accounts from 20-8-1972 till 24-11-1976 and the first defendant shall account for the balance of sale consideration left over with him. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 433 of 1980 for passing a final decree, pursuant to which, the Court appointed a Commissioner to work out and settle the accounts in terms of the preliminary decree. The Commissioner filed a report holding that the plaintiffs have to pay Rs. 1,42,918-00 and Rs. 9,000/- towards the share of the defendants. Since the said application was not pressed, the same was dismissed. Later on, the defendants filed I.A. No. 1079 of 1983 for passing a final decree in accordance with the report filed by the Commissioner. During the pendency of the petition one Sri Nagraj was appointed as Commissioner who examined the witnesses and marked documents. On the basis of the report submitted by the Commissioner, the learned Subordinate Judge passed a final decree holding that the total amount payable by the plaintiffs to the defendants is Rs. 1,79,704/-. The plaintiffs were also directed to pay interest at 12% per annum on the above total amount from the date of the suit i.e., 1-12-1976 till the date of realisation. Pursuant to the above order, a final decree was passed in the following terms:

“That the 2nd respondent/2nd plaintiff do pay petitioners/defendants a sum of Rs. 1,78,704/- with interest thereon at 12% p.a. from 1-12-76 (date of suit) to the date of realisation.”

3. The 2nd plaintiff filed E.A. No. 286 of 1992 in E.P. 16 of 1991 in I.A. No. 1079 of 1983 contending that the final decree passed is contrary to the terms of the preliminary decree as the preliminary decree was passed again???t the 1st plaintiff whereas in the final decree the 2nd plaintiff was made liable to discharge the decree amount in his personal capacity. He also raised various other objections. The trial Court dismissed the E.A. on the ground ???t the petitioner filed an appeal against the preliminary decree in A.S. No. 1767 of 1991 on the file of the High Court and sought for stay of execution of thedecree. While granting stay of execution of the decree, the High Court directed him to deposit the decretal amount against which he filed a Letters P???ent Appeal in L.P.A. No. 282 of 1992. This Court while disposing of the Letters Patent Appeal directed the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs. 1,79,000/- within six weeks from the date of the order and with the said direction the order in the stay petition was modified. However, the petitioner has not deposited the amount which according to the learned Subordinate Judge establishes that the petitioner wants to prolong the matter for some reason or the other and that in view of the orders of the High Court in the L.P.A. no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner. Holding as above, the Subordinate Judge dismissed the E.A., against which, the present revision is filed.

4. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the final decree is contrary to the terms of the preliminary decree as the preliminary decree was passed against the first plaintiff wherein it was categorically stated that the first plaintiff shall render accounts for the profits and losses of the busin