Thankappan, J.

Plaintiff in O.S.No.586/99 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam is the appellant. First respondent is a firm represented by its Managing Director, 2nd respondent and respondents 3 to 5 are directors. The suit was filed for realization of Rs.3,33,926 with 22% interest per annum from 28-2-1998 onwards. As per the plaint averments, the appellant is a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of supplying metal aggregates under the name and style “Slabs and Aggregates”. The 1st respondent purchased metal aggregates from the appellant and during the course of the said business transaction the 1st respondent owed a sum of Rs.5,48,926 on 28-1-1998. On demand, the 1st respondent paid an amount of Rs.2,15,000 leaving a balance of Rs.3,33,926. Inspite of repeated demands, the 1st respondent did not pay the balance amount and hence, the suit is filed for recovery of the amount.

2. Resisting the suit claim, the respondents had jointly filed a written statement. In the written statement the respondents have contended that the appellant is not a registered firm and respondents 2 to 5, being directors of the 1st respondent firm, are not personally liable to pay the debts to the “Slabs and Aggregates”, a different legal entity. The respondents have also contended that the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties since the appellant has no locus standi to file the suit for realization of the amount owned to “Slabs and Aggregates” as “Slabs and Aggregates” is a different legal entity from that of the 1st appellant. It is also contended that the suit was barred by limitation.

3. Before the court below PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A13 were marked on the side of the appellant. DW1 was examined on the side of the respondents.

4. The court below mainly framed the following issues for trial:-

1) Is the suit bad for misjoinder of parties?

2) Whether the plaintiff is competent to sue for the amounts due to ‘M/s. Slabs & Aggregates’?

3) Is the plaint claim barred by the law of limitation?

4) What is the correct amount due from the 1st defendant company?

5) What shall be the chargeable rate of interest?

6) Reliefs and costs.

The trial court after considering the pleadings and evidence adduced dismissed the suit holding that the appellant was incompetent to sue for the amount due to “Slabs & Aggregates”.

5. The points for consideration are:-

1) Whether the suit filed by the appellant is maintainable.

2) What is the correct amount due from the defendants to the plaintiff?

6. Point No.1:- The main question to be decided in the appeal is whether the appellant firm is having its legal entity under the provisions of the Partnership Act to file the suit against respondents. Exts.A1 to A4 documents are related to the transaction between the 1st respondent-firm and “M/s. Slabs and Aggregates”. In Ext.A5 registered notice the appellant firm is shown as the proprietors of “Slabs and Aggregates”. Ext.A6 lawyer notice was issued on behalf of “Slabs and Aggregates”. It is in evidence that the appellant has got its own trade names or trade marks and the “Slabs and Aggregates” is the trade name of the appellant. The appellant also established that the business of supply of metal aggregates is under the name and style of “Slabs and Aggregates”. In all the above exhibits produced by the plaintiff, M/s. Varkisons Engineers is described as the proprietor of Slabs and Aggregates. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the court below went wrong in holding that the appellant is incompetent to sue for the amount due to “Slabs and Aggregates”. In this context, the learned counsel relied on a decision reported in J.C. Gupta and others v. Messers Wazir Chand Vir Bhan Jullundur, 1967 Punjab Law Reporter 833. In the above decision the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a firm registered under the Partnership Act could carry on business in a trade name. In Ext.A9 reply notice sent on behalf of the defendants it is admitted that M