Partners of a firm are jointly and severally liable for the acts of the firm, and a creditor can recover the debt from any one or more of the partners.

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Heard.

2. This is a first appeal filed by the plaintiff under Section 96 of C.P. Code against the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2001 passed by the District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 96A/86.

3. By the impugned judgment and decree, the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit filed for recovery of Rs.9,13,630.24 against the defendants.

4. So the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the trial Court was justified in dismissing the plaintiff's suit?

5. Facts of the case need mention to appreciate the controversy involved in the suit and now in appeal.

6. The appellant (plaintiff) is the nationalized bank where-as respondent No.1 (defendant No.1) M/s Indiana Cosmetic and Chemical Industries is a partnership firm. The partners of the defendant No. 1 firm at all relevant time were one Shri Nand Kishore Jaisinghani - original defendant NO.2 (since dead) now represented by his legal representatives as defendants 2(A) to 2(D) and one Shri Lekhram Budhani- defendant No.3. There is some dispute about the status of Smt Maina Parwani - defendant NO.4 as to whether she was inducted in the partnership in her individual capacity or as natural guardian of one minor Manoj Parwani to represent his interest. The fact remains that she was admitted to the partnership business and was accordingly arrayed by the plaintiff, as one of the partner of the defendant No. 1 - firm.

7. According to the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 - firm which was engaged in the business of manufacturing certain goods had taken a loan from the plaintiff -Bank in November 1980 in the form of cash credit facility limit to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- and a term loan of Rs.3,00,000/- for expansion of their business activity and to secure the loan, had executed all necessary documents in Bank's favour - such as demand promissory notes, letter of continuity, agreement of hypothecation, letter of hypothecation of machinery, articles of agreement of loan etc. These documents were duly signed by partners of the firm named above. It was also the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.5 (since dead) acted as surety for the defendant - firm to secure the loan amount by mortgaging his house. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant No. 1 - firm failed to repay the amount either towards principal or interest accrued thereon in terms of loan agreement. It was alleged that it was for this reason, the defendants duly acknowledged their liability to repay on 22.07.1982 and 17.08.1984 in writing by executing acknowledgement of liability. It was further alleged that since the defendants failed to repay any amount in terms of loan agreement, and hence, the plaintiff served the defendants a legal notice dated 01.08.1985 (Ex-P-9) calling upon them to repay the principal amount together with interest accrued thereon. The defendants despite receipt of the legal notice since failed to pay and hence, the suit, out of which, this appeal arises was filed against all the defendants on 31.3.1986 for recovery of Rs.9,13,630/- which included principal sum and interest accrued thereon till the date of filing of suit.

8. Before filing the written statement, the defendant No. 2 - Nand Kishore Jaisinghani died and hence, his legal representatives (four sons) were brought on record as defendant No.2 (A) to 2 (D). Similarly during pendency of suit, defendant NO.5 - Prabhu Das Parwani - guarantor also died. However, instead of bringing his legal representatives on record, the plaintiff applied for deletion of his name from the cause title. The trial Court by order dated 20.4.2000 permitted the deletion. In this view of the matter, now so far as defendant No.5 i.e. Guarantor is concerned, the suit no longer survived qua defendant No.5.

9. Defendant No. 1 - firm did not file any written statement. However, each defendant filed their individual written statement and took a common stand against the plaintiff. They denied the plaintiff's claim sa