ORDER.- The question in this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is whether when the judgment-debtor is a person who was a partner of a firm which has since been dissolved, the decree-holder can proceed against the interests of that person (judgment-debtor) in the dissolved firm only under Order 21, rule 49, Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant before me in this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is the judgment-debtor in a decree obtained by the first respondent herein. The decree-holder attached the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtor in the dissolved firm by name, General Engineering Foundry Industrial Estate, Tiruchirapalli. The said property (right, title and interest of the judgment-debtor in the defunct firm) was sold in Court-auction after which the judgment-debtor filed an application under Order 21, rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure, for settling aside the said sale. The executing Court while dealing with the above-said application, to set aside the sale, dismissed the execution petition itself holding that it was not maintainable.

2. The view of the executing Court is that the decree-holder ought to have adopted the special procedure provided under Order 21, rule 49, Code of Civil Procedure in proceeding against the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtor in General Engineering Foundry, and that the said procedure having not been followed, the execution petition resulting in the sale was not maintainable. The said execution petition came to be dismissed. On appeal by the decree-holder, the learned Additional District Judge, Tiruchirapalli reversed the finding of the executing Court and held that the special procedure prescribed under Order 21, rule 49, Code of Civil Procedure, is not applicable to this case inasmuch as the partnership, General Engineering Foundry, had been dissolved even before the decree-holder took out execution. The view of the Appellate Judge is that the special procedure under Order 21, rule 49 is applicable only when the partnership is in existence and not after it stood dissolved. He based his view on a deci- sion of this Court, in Rangayya v. Nagapothu Rao1. It is the correctness of this view that is questioned by the judgment-debtor in this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal.

Order 21, rule 49, Code of Civil Procedure, is as follows:

" (1) Save as otherwise provided by this rule, property belonging to a partnership shall not be attached or sold in execution of a decree other than a decree passed against the firm or against the partners in the firm as such.

(2) The Court may, on the application of the holder of a decree against a partner, make an order charging the interest of such partner in the partnership property and profits with payment of the amount due under the decree, and may, by the same or a subsequent order, appoint a Receiver of the share of such partner in the profits (whether already declared or accruing) and of any other money which may be coming to him in respect of the partnerhip, and direct accounts and inquiries and make an order for the sale of such interest or other orders as might have been directed or made if a charge had been made in favour of the decree-holder by such partner or as the circumstances of the case may require.

(3) The other partner or partners shall be at liberty at any time to redeem the interest charged or , in the case of a sale being directed, to purchase the same.

(4) Every application for an order under sub-rule (2) shall be served on the judgment-debtor and on his partners or such of them as are within India.

(5) Every application made by any partner of the judgment-debtor under sub-rule (3) shall be served on the decree-holder and on the judgment-debtor, and on such of the other partners as do not join in the application and as are within India.

(6) Service under sub-rule (4) or sub-rule (5) shall be deemed to be service on all the partners, and all orders made on such applications shall be similarly served."

3. In the present case,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document