There being no agreement between petitioner and respondent or partners of reconstituted firm petitioner could not escape third party claim from respondent.

The present Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal order of the learned X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai made in E.A.No.1050 of 2005 in E.P.No.1892 of 2004 in O.S.No.1892 of 2002 dated 8. 2005.

2. The short facts of the case, which are relevant for the disposal of the present revision, are as follows:-

The respondent herein has filed the suit in O.S.No.1892 of 2002 against one M/s.T.Madhava Rao and Company represented by its 3 partners including the petitioner herein and obtained a money decree. The petitioner herein has been arrayed as 3rd defendant in the said suit. The suit was decreed on 30.12.2002. Thereafter, the respondent has filed the execution petition in E.P.No.1892 of 2004 against the above referred firm and its partners including the petitioner herein. In the said execution petition, the petitioner filed an application in E.A.No.1050 of 2005 in E.P.No.1892 of 2004 under Section 47 C.P.C. to dismiss the execution petition filed by the respondent herein. The said application has been contested by the respondent by filing a detailed counter. The learned X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, after considering the merits and demerits of the application filed by the petitioner, dismissed the said application by his order dated 8. 2005. The present revision is directed against the said order.

3. Mr.S.J.Jagadev, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that (a) the petitioner has retired from the partnership firm on 8. 2001 much before the suit instituted against the partnership-firm in the year 2002; Hence, the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount claimed by the respondent.

.(b) The petitioner-judgment debtor had already intimated respondent/decree-holder about his resignation from the partnership firm through a letter dated 38. 2001. Further, public notice was issued by the petitioner in Tamil daily Malai Malar" on 38. 2001 regarding his retirement. Hence, the execution petition that has been levied against the petitioner is not valid in law.

.(c) The Court below failed to see that the respondent/judgment debtor has obtained an exparte decree against the petitioner suppressing the fact that he has retired from the partnership-firm before the institution of the said suit.

4. Per contra, Mr.T.S.Skandakumar, the respondent/ decree-holder contended that

.(a) The cause of action for the suit arose much prior to the alleged retirement of the petitioner on 8. 2001 and hence, the suit that has been instituted by the respondent against the firm and the petitioner is perfectly valid.

.(b) As per Section 32(3) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter called "the Act"), the partners continue to be liable to third parties if any act done by them prior to their retirement.

.(c) The petitioner has not given any notice as contemplated under Section 72 of the said Act and hence, the plea of the petitioner that he has retired from the firm and he is not liable to pay any amount to the respondent after his retirement on 8. 2001 cannot be accepted.

5. I have heard the the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent.

6. It is an admitted case that the cause of action for the suit arose on 111. 1998, 11. 2000, 20.11.2000 and 30.3.2001. It is further admitted that the petitioner retired from the firm on 8. 2001. Hence, the petitioner, in spite of the fact that he has retired from the partnership firm on 8. 2001, is liable to third parties for any act of the firm done before his retirement. Since the petitioner has retired from the firm only on 8. 2001, subsequent to the cause of the action arisen for the suit, the petitioner cannot be discharged from liability to third parties. But, the retiring partner may be discharged from any liability from any third party for the acts of the firm done before his retirement, through an agreement made by him with such third party and partners of the reconstituted firm. But, in the given cas