Death of a partner of a registered partnership firm does not abate a suit filed by the firm.

1. - The revision petition is directed against the order dated 31.8.1987 of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1 Alwar and another order also passed on that very day by which the plaintiffs' suit was abated and dismissed as it remained no more maintainable in view of the death of a partner of the registered firm.

2. Very few facts need be narrated for the disposal of the revision petition :

M/s Chunnilal Devkinandan along with Devkinandan and Smt. Nirmala instituted a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 29,450/- against defendant Nathu Ram which came for trial before the learned Additional District Judge No. 1 Alwar. The suit was based on a bond executed by the defendant in favour of M/s Chunnilal Devkinandan on 2.2.1981 for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- found due against him on taking accounts. M/s. Chunnilal Devkinandan was described to be a partnership firm duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act 1932. Devkinandan and Smt. Nirmla Devi were stated to be partners of the aforesaid firm M/s. Chunnilal Devkinandan. The suit was contested by the defendant. During pendency of the trial of the suit the death of Devkinandan took place on 25.9.1984. On 15.12.1984 an application was moved stating therein that firm Chunnilal Devkinandan was re-constituted on account of the death of Devkinandan and that Brij Bhushan Brijendra Kumar and Jitendra Kumar were admitted as new partners. It was prayed in the application that Brij Bhushan Brijendra Kumar and Jitendra Kumar be substituted as plaintiffs in place of deceased plaintiff Devkinandan. This application was opposed by the defendant. Learned Additional District Judge by his impugned order held that since the names of Brij Bhushan Brijendra Kumar and Jitendra Kumar were also not entered in the register kept in the office of the Registrar of Firms and were not shown as partners therein they could not be impleaded or substituted as plaintiffs in place of the deceased- plaintiff Devkinandan. He further held that since no legal representative of deceased-plaintiff Devkinandan was brought on record the suit abated. The suit was eventually dismissed by another order passed on the same day in the order sheet. Aggrieved against the said orders the plaintiffs have come up in revision petition.

3. Despite service of notice the defendant/non petitioner did not put appearance. As such the revision was heard ex-parte in his absence.

4. I have heard Mr. Lodha learned counsel for petitioner and perused the impugned orders.

5. It was contended by Mr. Lodha that the entire approach of the court below was erroneous. The suit did not abate on account of the death of Devkinandan. The suit was filed by the duly registered partnership firm in accordance with the provisions of Order 30 Rule 1 CPC. When the suit is filed by a registered partnership firm it does not stand abated on account of death of one of the partners. The provisions of Section 45 of the Indian Contract Act 1972 (sic 1872) have no applicability in such a case. Rule 4 of Order 30 CPC specifically lays down that if a suit is brought in the name of a firm and if one of the partners dies during the pendency of the suit it is not necessary to join the legal representatives of the deceased partner and to bring them on record in his place. Reliance in support of the contention was placed on (1) Shambhu Dayal Vs. M/s Chunnilal Devkinandan (AIR 1980 Raj. 69) decided by a learned single Judge of this court.

6. I have carefully gone through the above case and have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission made by Mr. Lodha and find that there is considerable force in it. Order 30 lays down the institution of suits by or against the firms etc. Rule 1 lays down that if two or more persons claiming or being liable as partners carry on business they may sue or be sued in the name of the firm. A firm is an abbreviated name for the partners. Rule I permits that a partnership firm can institute a suit and the pleadings may be signed or veri