1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed in E.P. No. 196 of 2009 on the files of the Additional District Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram. The revision petitioner, a Government of India undertaking, is the decree holder and the respondent, a partnership firm represented by its Managing Partner, is the judgment debtor. A decree for realisation of Rs. 1,12,82,248/- was passed by the High Court of Delhi in Suit No. 1484 of 1994 in favour of the petitioner in terms of arbitration award dated 28/06/1994. The decree was transferred to the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram, by the High Court of Delhi and the decree holder filed the above E.P. to execute the decree against the respondent/judgment debtor. The judgment debtor has not chosen to enter appearance to contest the execution petition on merits. The execution petition was filed, seeking realisation of the said amount, from the property sought to be attached of the respondent herein, who is the Managing Partner of the firm. The court below considered the question whether the property of the Managing Partner of the partnership firm can be proceeded with to execute the decree against the firm? After considering the above question, the court below refused to proceed against the property of the Managing Partner by passing the impugned order and posted the case for further steps, if any. The legality, propriety and regularity of this order are under challenge in this revision petition.

2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner advanced arguments assailing the finding that execution of the decree against the property of the Managing Partner is not permissible unless statutory requirements under Order 21, Rule 50 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short the CPC) are satisfied. According to the learned counsel, in the arbitration proceedings, the Managing Partner entered appearance representing the firm. Therefore, the decree can be executed under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 50 of Order 21 of the CPC. That apart, the revision petitioner has produced certain documents in this revision petition to show that in those documents the Managing Partner himself admitted that he is the Managing Partner of the firm. Therefore, the decree can be executed against the personal property of the Managing Partner in view of the second limb of Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 50 of Order 21 of the CPC. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further cited the decision in Topanmal Chhotamal vs. M/s. Kundomal Gangaram and Others, AIR 1960 SC 388 and drew my attention to paragraph 2(a).

3. In view of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the short question that arises for consideration in this revision petition is, whether the personal property of the partner of the partnership firm can be proceeded with, attachment and sale in execution of the decree against the firm? This question in controversy throws light to clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 50 of Order 21 of Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as follows:

50. Execution of decree against firm - (1) Where a decree has been passed against a firm, execution may be granted

(a) Against any property of the partnership.

(b) Against any person who has appeared in his own name under rule 6 or rule 7 of Order XXX or who has admitted on the pleadings that he is, or who has been adjudged to be, a partner.

(c) Against any person who has been individually served as a partner with a summons and has failed to appear.

Provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the provisions of [Section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (9 of 1932)].

For the proper application of the above Rule, I must analyse the method of service of notice against the firm provided under Order XXX of the CPC.

4. Order XXX of the CPC deals with suits by or against firms and persons carrying on business in names other than their own. According to Order XXX (1) of the CPC any t