A Hindu joint family trading concern, though not a firm in the legal sense, may be sued in its assumed name of the business under Order 30, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure.

1. This appeal is brought on behalf of the decree-holder against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Darbhanga dated the 31st May, 1-954, holding in the first place that the decree was a nullity and could not be executed because one of the judgment-debtors, Kishorilal Sahu, had died about eight months before the hearing of the suit and his legal representatives were not brought on the record of the case. The learned Subordinate Judge, held in the second place that the defendant firm was not registered under the Indian Partnership Act and so could not be treated as a legal entity and no decree could be passed against the firm "Dipa Sahu Deoki Prasad" impleaded as a defendant. In taking this view the learned Subordinate Judge relied upon a decision, Bhawarjit Chetri V/s. Kedarmal Banarsilal, AIR 1954 Assam 111.

2. In support of this appeal Mr. G. C. Mukharji pointed out, in the first place, that the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge is erroneous on both the points. It was argued that the decree was properly granted in favour of the decree-holder against the joint family trading firm called "Dipa Sahu Deoki Prasad". We think that this argument is correct. For it is well settled in a series of authorities that in the case of a joint Hindu family trading firm the provisions of Order 30, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, apply. It was pointed out in those cases that though there is no contractual partnership between the members of the Hindu undivided family carrying on the family business as such, still for the purpose of Order 30, Rule 10, the Hindu joint family business can be sued in its firm name under the provisions of Order 30 Rule 10. In other words, the name of the joint family trading firm is only a compemdious name for all the members of the joint family who have joined the business as partners. Provisions of Order 30, Rule 10, are to the following effect:-

-

"10. Suit against person carrying on business in name other than his own--Any person carrying on business in name or style other than his own name may be sued in such name or style as if it were a firm name; and, so far as the nature of the case will permit, all rules under this order shall apply".

It is to be observed that this rule does not enable a person carrying on business in a name or style either than his own to sue in that name as a plaintiff. All that it provides is that he can be sued in that name as a defendant, the reason being that persons who deal with him in his assumed name should not be debarred from, suing him in that name, because ha has assumed that name in dealing with them. That view expressed by Venkatasubba Rao, J. in Chidambaram Chettiar V/s. National City Bank of New York ILR 1937 Mad 28: (AIR 1936 Mad 707) and that view has been followed by a Division Bench of this High Court consisting of Fazl Ali and Varma, JJ., in Alekh Chandra V/s. Krishna Chandra, AIR 1941 Pat 596.

It was held in that case that Order 30, Rule 10, will apply not only to a single individual but also apply to a case where more persons than one carry on a business in an assumed name, though strictly speaking they are not partners. It was further held in that case that the provisions of Order 21, Rule 50, must be read along with the rules of Order 30, and, therefore, the procedure under Order 21, Rule 50, Code of Civil Procedure would apply to the execution of a decree against a joint Hindu, family trading firm.

The view expressed by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in AIR 1941 Pat 596 has been followed by the Calcutta High Court in Jamunadhar Poddar Firm V/s. Jamunaram Bhakat, AIR 1944 Cal 138. The same view has been taken by the Orissa High Court in Harishankar Lath V/s. General Merchants Ltd., AIR 1956 Orissa 186. The position in law, therefore, is that a Hindu joint family trading concern, though not a firm in the legal sense, may be sued in its assumed name of the business under the provisions of Order 30, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure,