MALIK, CJ :- This is a revision under Section 115, Civil P.C. The point raised by learned counsel is that there is no provision of law under which when a suit was filed on behalf of a partnership by a partner the other partners could apply that their names be also brought on the record and they might be allowed to continue the suit on behalf of the partnership. Learned counsel has relied on, the provisions of Order 30, Civil P.C. (Act 5 of 1908) and has urged that the order relates only to an application by a party to the suit applying for disclosure of names of partners of a firm, in the name of which or against which a suit has been filed, and the other partners, who were not parties to the suit, had no right to apply that their names be disclosed and they be allowed to continue the suit in the name of the partnership.

The provisions of Order 30, Civil P.C. are, however, enabling provisions and they enable any two or more persons to sue or be sued in the name of a firm. If the provision was not there it may make it necessary, where there is no agreement that one partner is entitled to represent the firm and to sue or be sued in the name of the firm, for all partners to join as parties when a suit has to be filed in the name of a partnership firm or against it. The provisions of Order 30, Rule 1 do not make a suit filed in the name of a firm through all the partners of the firm a defective suit.

2. The facts of this case are that a suit was originally filed by one Umaruddin in his own name. The plaint was, however, subsequently amended by an order dated 22-4-1950, and it became a suit on behalf of the firm Messrs. Umaruddin and Sons, through Umaruddin partner. From the registered deed of partnership and other documents on the record it appeared that the partners of the firm were Umaruddin, Abdul Karim, Mardan Khan and Saheb Khan. Umaruddin, according to the defendant, had migrated to Pakistan, The plaintiffs probably do not admit this fact. Be that as it may, the other partners applied that their names be also disclosed in the plaint so that they may be able to continue the suit on behalf of Messrs. Umaruddin and Sons. This application was granted by the learned District Judge on 30-4-1952, and this revision has been filed against that order.

3. The argument advanced by learned counsel is that the learned Judge had no right to pass the order either under Order 30, Rule 1 or Rule 2, or under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P.C. Order 30, Rr. 1 and 2 in short provide that two or more persons claiming or being liable as partners may sue or be sued in the name of the firm of which they are partners, and any party to a suit may in such case apply to the Court for a statement of the names and addresses of the persons who were, at the time of the accruing of the cause of action, partners in such firm. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 allows the pleading etc to be verified or signed by one partner on behalf of the partnership. Rule 2 of Order 30 provides that the plaintiffs will be bound to disclose the names of the partners on an application being made to that effect by the defendant.

4. The submission made by learned counsel is that Rule 2 only applies to a disclosure by the plaintiff on an application by the defendant and Rule 1 applies to a disclosure of the names and addresses of all the partners on an application by any party to a suit. The question, therefore, is whether in a case where a suit has been filed on behalf of a firm by a partner the other partners, can apply under Order 30, Rule 1. The suit being in the name of and on behalf of the partnership, all the partners should be deemed to be parties in their capacity as partners and there appears to be no reason why they should not be able to apply under Order 30, R. 1.

5. In - Abrahams and Co. v. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co., (1905) 1 KB 46 (A) a decision by the Court of Appeal in England - an application was filed by a person supported by an affidavit that though her name had not been di