The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity to ascertain the satisfaction of conditions for execution against a person alleged to be a partner of the firm before proceeding with execution.

JUDGMENT :

D.P. Mohapatra, J. - Shri Ham Prasad Hota who is being pursued in Execution Case No. 87 of 1982 as one of the judgment-debtors filed these revision petitions assailing different orders passed therein by the First Subordinate judge, Cuttack. While Civil Revision No. 294 of 1989 is directed against the order dated 7. 1.1989 by which the learned Subordinate Judge rejected the petitioner's prayer to stay further proceedings of the execution case till disposal of the suit (T. S. No. 702/87) filed by the petitioner. Civil Revision No. 327 of 1989 is directed against the order passed on 2-2-1989 by which the Court directed issue of warrant of arrest against him.

2. Since the case has had a chequered career, it is necessary to state, its factual backdrop leading to the present proceedings. The opp. party No. 1 Batliboy and Co. Private Limited filed. Money Suit No. 3688 of 1969 agamit the opposite party No. Davaloy Trading House, a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act In the Calcutta High-Court and obtained a decree for realisation of Rs. 1,05,645.85 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the suit (9th October, 1969) until realisation, costs etc. The said decree is being executed in the ' aforementioned Execution Case filed by the plaintiff-company against the defendant firm and against opposite party No. 3 Sri Ramnarayan Hota and the petitioner Shri Hara Prasad Hota as its partners.lt appears from the record in the execution case that the petitioner filed objection on 29th January 1986. sating, inter alia, that the suit in question was against the firm' Devaloy Trading House and the decree was obtained against the said firm- that by the date of filing of the suit the objector (petitioner) was not a partner of the firm and therefore the execution case could not proceed against him. It was further stated in the objection that since the decree was only against the firm and the petitioner was not impleaded as a party in the case, the execution case against him was not maintainable and the question of realising the decretal dues from him did not arise. No order appears to have been passed in the order-sheet and none has been brought to my nonce by the counsel for the parties specifically dealing with the objections raised by the petitioner. As the record reveals, the decree-hosde proceedmg against the revision petitioner for realisation of the decretal dues by attachment and sale of certain personal properties belonging to him. The Executing Court directed issue of warrant of arrest against the petitioner which was challenged in this Court in Civil Revision No. 504 of 1985. This Court set aside the order and dfrected fie Executing Court to reconsider the matter. On reconsideration, the executing Court by order dated 6-5-1987 again directed issue of warrant stating his reasons for the same Faced with such compelling situation the petitioner filed Title Suit Ho. 762 of 1987 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge (I),. Cuttack to declare that the decree- in Money Suit No. 3688 of 1969 is null and void and not binding against him and consequentially the Execution Case No. 87 of 1982 filed against him is not maintainable. Thereafter he filed an application in the execution case to stay further proceedings till disposal of the above mentioned suit The said application was rejected by the order passed on 7-1-1989 which is being assailed in Civil Revision No. 234 of 1989. Thereafter the further order directing issue of warrant of arrest against the petitioner was passed on 2-2-198) which forms the subject matter of Civil Revision No. 327 of 1989.

3. Shri J. M. Mohanty appearing for the revision petitioner strenuously urged that the execution case is not maintainable against the petitioner since he was neither a partner of the defendant-firm when he suit filled nor was he impeded as such in the suit. It was the furtner Contention of Shri Mohanty that the learned Subordinate judge