The main legal point established is that a partnership firm is not a legal entity, and the partners are the real owners of the firm's assets. The court also clarified the power of the court to amend judgments and decrees in execution proceedings under Civil Procedure Code sections 152 and 153.

ORDER :

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by an objector Ramesh Joshi s/o Girdharilal Joshi is directed against the order dated 23-7-2014 in execution case No. 3/99, No. 31B/95X3/99 passed by the executing Court/Additional District Judge, Barwaha District Khargone (formerly known as West Nimar) where under an application for addition of the name of the petitioner as judgment-debtor by virtue of being partner of defendant No. 3/firm in the cause title has been allowed.

2. Facts relevant and necessary for disposal of this writ petition in nutshell are to the following effect :

The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Khandwa the respondent No. 2 (for short, the plaintiff) had filed recovery suit being Civil Suit No. 31B/1995 against the following parties as defendants :

(a) M/s Kirloskar Brothers Limited, Registered Office Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Road, Pune (Maharastra);

(b) Kirloskar Brothers Limited Regional Sales Office 15 Maharani Road, Indore; and

(c) M/s Joshi and Company Authorized dealer of Kirloskar Brothers Indore Road, Barwaha, Tehsil Barwaha District West Nimar on the premise that the plaintiff had (i) for supply of water to the public at large is in requirement of 200 hrs power electric motor and pump for its erection at Water Supply Center Jaswadi; (ii) contacted defendants No. 1 and 2 as they are engaged in the business of manufacturing motor pumps, electric motor pumps etc.; (iii) however, the defendant No. 2 vide letter dated 10-11-1992 informed that since they undertake commercial business through authorized dealers only but, not directly, therefore, defendant No. 3 its authorized dealer may be contacted; (iv) thereafter quotations were invited; (v) the quotation of defendant No. 3 was found to be lowest and the same was approved vide resolution No. 212 dated 2- 12-1992 for supply of 200 hrs power electric motor and pump for an amount of Rs. 10,11,625/-; (vi) accordingly, agreement was entered between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 3 on 4-12-1992 for supply of the electric motor and pump and as per terms and conditions of the agreement, an advance of 25% of the amount was to be paid and the motor and pump were to be delivered within three months; (vii) an advance money of Rs. 1,81,500/- was paid vide cheque No. 0523728 dt.4-12-1992 drawn on Bank of India, Branch Khandwa and the same was received by defendant No. 3; (viii) however, the supply was not effected resulting into termination of the agreement vide notice/order dated 20-8-1993 calling upon the defendants to return the advance amount with interest at the rate of 2% per annum.

Earlier, the plaintiff had filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Khandawa against the defendants No. 1 and 2. The Consumer Forum sustained the objection raised by defendants No. 1 and 2 that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendants No. 1 and 2. Instead, the agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 3 for supply of 200 horsepower electric motor and pump as well as advance amount of Rs. 1,81,500/- was paid to defendant No. 3 to its partner. The complaint was accordingly rejected on 1-8-1995.

Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the instant suit with the aforesaid facts.

3. Defendants No. 1 and 2 filed written statement and denied plaint averments reiterating the stand as was taken before the District Consumer Forum inter alia contending that plaintiff had entered an agreement with defendant No. 3 for supply of the electric motor and pump who had also received the advance money from the plaintiff. Therefore, recovery, if any; can be made only from defendant No. 3 but not by the defendants No. 1 and 2.

4. Defendant No. 3 remained ex parte.

5. Trial Court upon pleadings of the parties, framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Thereafter drawn following conclusions:

(a) defendant No. 3; an authorized dealer of defendants No. 1 and 2 had submitted quotation and rates for supply of 200 h