Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava, President— Both these revisions relate to the same matter and they can be conveniently disposed off together as the questions raised in both revisions are the same and in Misc. Cases taken together are also same. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 18.9.1998 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Mirzapur. In Revision No. 134 the order is filed against the order in Case No. 190/96 and Revision No. 135 has been filed against the order in Case No. 110/96.

2. It is not necessary to mention in detail the facts of both the revisions. The revision has been filed against the order on the ground that this order has been passed by a single Member, i.e. the President and has not been signed by any other member. Copy of the order is on record. The perusal of the order goes to show that it has been passed on an application moved by opposite party and the order was passed on the same day. In the application it has been mentioned that when the Counsel reached the District Forum, in order to argue the case on rulings and law, he came to know that the case has already been decided. A reference of a case has been filed in this application. It was prayed that the case law of the applicant be also considered and the order passed earlier in the day be reviewed. On behalf of opposite party, it was argued that since the order had already been passed, therefore, this application was without force. Even if this is signed by a single Member it does not have any effect because it only states a fact. It is not an order and has no effect.

3. It is further argued by learned Counsel for the applicants that order dated 18.9.1998 is illegal as it has been signed by a single Member. Section 14(2A) of Consumer Protection Act provides that every order has to be signed by the President and at least one Member who conducted the proceedings. Therefore this order dated 18.9.1998 is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside.

4. According to the learned Counsel for the Revisionist, one partner, Mohd. Ibrahim, was doing pairvi of the case on behalf of the opposite party-partnership firm died. He has further argued that the other partners have started doing pairvi were not authorised to do the same as there is no clause in the partnership deed authorising any other partner to do pairvi. On the death of one of the partners, the partnership firm stood dissolved and no other partner could conduct the case on behalf of the firm. On the other hand learned Counsel for the opposite party argued that on death of a partner, the partnership firm automatically does not stand dissolved unless there is a specific provision in the partnership deed. In this connection Section 42 of the Partnership Act may be looked into. Chapter 6 of the Indian Partnership Act deals with dissolution of a firm. This section reads as under :

"Subject to contract between the partners a firm is dissolved—

(a) if constituted for a fixed term, by the expiry of the term;

(b) if constituted to carry out one or more adventures or undertakings, by the completion thereof;

(c) by the death of a partner; and

(d) by the adjudication of a partner as an insolvent."

A perusal of this section goes to show that on the death of a partner, subject to the contract between the parties, the partnership firm shall stand dissolved if the term of the partnership has expired or if the purpose of the firm for which it was constituted has been completed or a partner is adjudicated as an insolvent and lastly on death of a partner. But there is big rider provided in this section which says that the firm shall not stand dissolved on the death of a partner if there is an agreement to the contrary. In the present case, learned Counsel for the opposite party has argued that on the death of a partner the firm shall not stand dissolved. A perusal of partnership deed goes to show that in para 21 of if, it is specifically provided that the death of any partner shall not opera