K. L. BAPNA, AG. C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiffs under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure code against the order of the District Judge, Bikaner dated 27-2-1954 in suit No. 3 of 1952.

( 2 ) THE allegations of the plaintiffs were that there was a firm Bijaisingh chandkaran at Calcutta. The partners were (1) Mannalal, (2) Padamchand, (3)Motilal, (4) Mirzamal, (5) Champalal, all sons of Seth Takhatmal and (6) Dalchand, another son of Takhatmal who is defendant No. 4 in the case. It was alleged that there was a firm of the name of Pancychand Nahata at Champai, Nawabganj, district Malda (now in Pakistan) of which the partners were Paneychand defendant No. 1, Meghraj, defendant No. 2, Jesraj defendant No. 3 and Dalchand son of takhatraal defendant No. 4. It was alleged that the firm Bijaisingh Chandkaran of Calcutta had dealings with firm Paneychand Nehata of Champai, Nawabganj as a result whereof a sum of Rs. 33, 574/-/6 remained due against the said firm payable to the plaintiffs. The firm of Paneychand Nahata was closed in Samwat 2004 prior to the formation of pakistan. It was alleged that the defendants did not pay up this amount and after adding interest