JUDGMENT :

1. The civil revision petition is filed against the fair and decreetal orders, dated 02.11.2017, in I.A.No.518 of 2016 in I.A.No.295 of 2006 in O.S.No.72 of 1933, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Devakottai.

2. The learned Subordinate Judge, Devakottai, allowed the interlocutory application in I.A.No.518 of 2016 by substituting the partner Thiru.V.Lakshmanan, to represent the respondent/petitioner Firm, namely, M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm. Challenging the said order, the Advocate-cum- Receiver of common estate of Ettukarai Valambars of Kottaiyur, in O.S.No.72 of 1933, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Devakottai, jas filed the present civil revision petition.

3. The facts in nutshell to be considered for the purpose of deciding the present civil revision petition are that the respondent/petitioner Mr.V.Lakshmanan is the partner of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm. The said interlocutory application was filed on behalf of the Firm. Earlier, the Firm filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.295 of 2006, before the Subordinate Court, Devakottai, for a direction to the revision petitioner/Court Receiver to execute a sale deed in accordance with the draft sale deed filed along with the above said interlocutory application. During the pendency of I.A.No.295 of 2006, Thiru.M.Krishnan, who represented M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm, died on 12.05.2009. Thus, the Partnership Firm was reconstituted on 21.07.2009 with the remaining partners and the respondent/petitioner, namely, Thiru.V.Lakshmanan was included as a new partner. The respondent/petitioner was authorized to handle the land dispute as per the Clause 7(3)(c) of the Reconstituted Deed. Accordingly, a Memo was filed by the respondent/petitioner seeking permission to represent the Firm by substituting his name in I.A.No.295 of 2006. The respondent/petitioner was permitted to substitute his name as per the orders of this Court, dated 07.09.2009, passed in M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2009 in C.R.P.(MD) No.1259 of 2009. The revision petitioner/Court Receiver also sent a reply to the Firm vide letter dated 16.06.2013 referring the respondent/petitioner as partner of the Firm as per Clause 13 of the Partnership Deed, dated 21.10.1982. In the event of death or retirement of partners, the same would not ipso facto dissolve the Partnership Firm. Therefore, the Partnership Firm continues even after the death or retirement of partners. Under these circumstances, the respondent/petitioner filed I.A.No.518 of 2016 seeking permission to substitute his name as the representative of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm.

4. The revision petitioner/respondent objected the substitution petition by stating that originally a Memo was filed to substitute Thiru.V.Lakshmanan his wife Tmt.L.Gowri. However, it was not filed under Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure. M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm was dissolved on account of the death of the partner, namely, Sri.Krishnan Servai. Therefore, all the partners in the Firm must be impleaded as party respondents. In view of the fact that all the partners were not impleaded as party respondents in the litigation, the present interlocutory application filed by Mr.V.Lakshmanan in the representative capacity of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm, is not maintainable.

5. It was further contended that the respondent/petitioner Mr.V.Lakshmanan is not a partner of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm and it was not reconstituted on 21.07.2009. A mere perusal of the reconstituted deed shows that fraud has been played. M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm commenced a deed of partner on 21.10.1982 with twenty persons as its partners. The said deed was not filed before the Trial Court. The reconstituted deed disclosed that on the death of a partner, the benefits of the Firm would be inherited by his legal heirs. As per the reconstituted deed, dated 21.07.2009, various partners died and some of the partners were alleged to have transferred their shares in favour of Thiru.V.Lakshmanan and others. Such a transfer of s