Garnishee’s liability to pay debt.

Sri Maheswari Commercial Finance Corporation, Tiruvannamalai, is a registered partnership firm in which one Visalakshi Ammal, mother of Muthukrishnan, was a partner. Muthukrishnan, along with his mother Visalakshi Ammal was stated to have executed a promissory note in favour of a Chit Fund for the money owned by Muthukrishnan to that Chit Fund in the sum of Rs. 3,213 with further interest thereon. The Chit Fund filed a suit O. S. No. 26 of 1977 ia the District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai against Muthukrishnan and his mother Visalakshiammal. The plaintiff-chit fund also filed an application for attachment before judgment of Rs. 4,000, which, according to the plaintiff chit fund, was stated to be in deposit in Sri Maheswari Commercial Finance Corporation to the credit of Visalakshi Ammal. In that application, Sri Maheswari Commercial Finance Corporation was impleaded as a garnishee. On notice of the application for attachment, the garnishee Corporation entered appearance and filed an affidavit disputing the allegation that Visalakshiammal was still a partner of the Corporation and that any money due to her was still in deposit with that Corporation. It was stated that Visalakshiammal retired from the partnership by giving notice to the other partners on 22nd January, 1977 and her retirement was accepted on 23rd January, 1977 at the meeting of the partnership firm and her retirement took effect from 24th January, 1977, It was also stated in the affidavit of the garnishee Corporation that the accounts of Visalakshiammal in the partnership were settled even on 24th January, 1977. It was stated that by the time the Garnishee notice was served on them, the garnishee Corporation having settled the partnership accounts owed nothing to the retiring partner Visalakshiammal.

2. At the enquiry, the learned District Munsif found that the notice of retirement of Visalakshiammal from the garnishee Corporation was registered by the District Registrar only on 27th January, 1977. The learned District Munsif found that the interim garnishee attachment was made by order of the Court even on 25th January, 1977 and therefore, the subsequent retirement of Visalakshiammal with effect from 27th January, 1977 cannot be pleaded by the garnishee Corporation as an answer to the garnishee notice. In this view, the learned District Munsif overruled the objection of the garnishee Corporation to the attachment of Rs. 4,000. He accordingly made the attach ment absolute.

3. The appeal by the garnishee Corporation against the decision of the District Munsif filed before the Sub-Court. Tiruvannamalai, was dismissed. Aggrieved by the findings and the conclusion of the Sub-Court in appeal, the garnishee Corporation has filed this petition under section 115 of the Code.

4. In the revision, the learned counsel for the garnishee Corporation submitted that the issue of the prohibitary order against the garnishee Corporation was without jurisdiction, or at any rate, was in irregular exercise of its jurisdiction. The learned counsel submitted that the Courts below have misunderstood the nature of the entry made by the Registrar of Firms in Form-A kept by the Registrar of Firms. It might be that Registrar of firms had entered the retirement of Visalakshi-ammal from the partnership on 27th January, 1977. But according to the learned counsel, this entry merely registers in the remarks column of the registry the factum of retirement. The retirement was undoubtedly on 23rd January, 1977, when the resolution of the partner was passed accepting the offer of retirement by Visalakshiammal from the partnership. It was therefore urged by the learned counsel that the whole basis of the order of the Courts below was founded on a misconception.

5. I think, I must accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the garnishee-firm as well founded. Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Partnership (Registration of Firms) Rules, 1951 provides that the register of firms shall be in Form A whe