The liability of a partner in a partnership extends to actions taken by the firm, reinforced by legal precedents governing execution of decrees against firm partners.

JUDGMENT :

Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J.

This second appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C is filed aggrieved against the judgment and decree, dated 25.04.2018, in A.S.No.166 of 2013 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, in confirming the decree and order dated 08.03.2013, in E.A.No.1 of 2013 in E.P.No.19 of 2007 in O.S.No.135 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli.

2. The appellant herein is the respondent No.3, respondent No.1 is the decree holder and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the judgment debtors in E.A.No.1 of 2013 in E.P.No.19 of 2007 in O.S.No.135 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli.

3. The petitioner/decree holder/plaintiff initiated action in E.A.No.1 of 2013 in E.P.No.19 of 2007 in O.S.No.135 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, with a prayer to grant leave to proceed against the third respondent for the realization of the decretal amount or in the alternative to determine the third respondent’s liability in the suit in case he disputes his liability in the interest of justice.

4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, allowed the petition with costs against the respondents/judgment Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.3 by granting leave to the petitioner/decree holder/plaintiff to proceed against the third respondent for the realization of the decretal amount. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful respondent No.3 in the above said E.A., filed A.S.No.166 of 2013, on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Guntur. The learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, dismissed the appeal suit with costs, by confirming the decree and order passed by the executing Court in E.A.No.1 of 2013 in E.P.No.19 of 2007 in O.S.No.135 of 2004. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent No.3 in the said E.A.No.1 of 2013 approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the E.A.No.1 of 2013

6. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff/D.Hr., in brief, as set out in the petition averments in E.A.No.1 of 2013 in E.P.No.19 of 2007 in O.S.No.135 of 2004, is as follows:

The respondent No.3 is the close relative of the respondent No.2 and both of them, along with three others, entered into a partnership deed on 01.04.1996 in the name and style of “M/s. Kotturi Appaiah and Sons and Company”, at Guntur for business purposes. While so, the respondent No.2 on behalf of the respondent No.1-firm borrowed multiple amounts viz., Rs.94,000/-, Rs.55,200/- and Rs.55,000/- on 31.05.2000, 14.05.2000 and 14.05.2000 respectively and executed promissory notes on the respective dates. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 on behalf of the respondent No.1-firm made part payments under the promissory notes on 11.05.2003, 05.05.2003 and 05.05.2003 respectively. While so, the petitioner/plaintiff/D.Hr. filed a suit in O.S.No.135 of 2004 against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,53,878/-, being the principal and interest due on the aforesaid three promissory notes said to have been executed on behalf of the respondent No.1-firm. Thereafter, the petitioner/plaintiff/D.Hr. also sought attachment of the immovable property of the respondent No.3 vide I.A.No.940 of 2004 and as such, the said property was attached on 05.07.2004 and the same was made absolute on 29.07.2004. Subsequently, after completion of the full-fledged trial, the suit was decreed against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 03.04.2006.

While so, after obtaining the decree, the petitioner/plai