Partners in a limited liability partnership can invoke execution provisions to protect their interests as joint decree-holders, governed by their partnership agreement.

Judgment

Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J.

By way of present revision petition, challenge has been made to an order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the Executing Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Faridabad, whereby an application filed at the instance of the petitioner, invoking Order 21 Rule 15 (2) read with Section 151 CPC, in pending execution, with a prayer for protecting and remittance of 11.33% share out of the decreetal amount, stands dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, 15 kanal 10 marla of land situated in village Sarai Khawaja, District Faridabad, was owned by respondent No.3-M/s Hydraulics & Pneumatics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Company’). Later by virtue of deed executed on 17.06.2013, registered on 22.06.2013, an agreement of limited liability partnership was executed in terms of Section 2(iv) of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘2008 Act’), whereby the legal status of “the Company” was converted into limited liability partnership firm i.e. in the name of M/s Hydraulics & Pneumatics (India) LLP (hereinafter referred to as ‘LLP Firm’), with Mr. Anirudh Kumar s/o Brij Raj Kumar, having 11.33 % share therein, besides others.

3. Vide Notifications dated 04.07.2012 and 13.12.2012 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1894 Act’) respectively, the above mentioned 15 kanal 10 marla of land owned by the LLP Firm came to be acquired for the purpose of setting up of Metro Stations from Badarpur YMCAAT TESTE Chowk, followed by an award No.13 dated 29.05.2013. Being aggrieved of the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’), the LLP Firm through one of its designated partner, namely, Brij Raj Kumar, invoked Section 18 of 1894 Act, seeking reference for the purpose of enhancement of compensation. The same was determined @ Rs.48,000/- per acre vide decision dated 20.12.2019 passed by the Reference Court in LAC petition No.04 of 2014. Based on the aforesaid award, the LLP Firm filed an execution petition bearing No.34/2020 on 11.02.2020.

4. During pendency of the aforementioned execution petition, the petitioner i.e. Metal ARCH Agri LLP through its authorized representative ‘Mr. Anirudh Kumar’ moved an application under Order XXI, Rule 15(2) of CPC praying for protecting his interest under the decree/award dated 20.12.2019 pleading himself to be one of the partners of the decree-holder/LLP Firm. In the said application, the case setup by the petitioner-applicant was that Mr. Anirudh Kumar, who held 11.33 % shares of LLP Firm based on agreement dated 17.06.2013, transferred the same in favour of applicant-petitioner under an agreement dated 17.12.2018. The aforesaid application was contested by respondent No.3 having filed a detailed reply, disputing the factum of execution of the agreement dated 17.12.2018, besides even the availability of remedy under Order XXI Rule 15(2) CPC to the petitioner.

5. The Executing Court-cum-Additional District Judge, vide order dated 06.04.2013 dismissed the application filed at the instance of petitioner while recording that the provision of Order XXI Rules 15 was not available to the petitioner-applicant, which was not a decree-holder as in the present case the decree/award dated 29.12.2019 was passed in favour of respondent No.3 being a limited liability partnership firm, the reference petition been filed by it alone through Brij Raj Kumar; one of the designated person and no one else.

6. Impugning the aforementioned order dated 06.04.2013 passed by the Executing Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of Order XXI Rule 15(2) of CPC are applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the petitioner-applicant has to be treated as decree-holder being one of the partners of the LLP Firm, based on the agreement dated 17.12.2018. In support of his contention, learned counsel refers to paragraph No. 17 of a decision of The Bomb