JUDGMENT

Tek Chand, J. - The plaintiff Amir Chand instituted a suit against three persons, Kahan Das, Jinda Ram and Hari Chand for recovery of a certain sum of money which was alleged to be due to him on foot of an entry in the bahi made by Hari Chand as the Karinda of a firm working under the name and style of Kahan Das-Jinda Ram. It was alleged that this firm consisted of two partners Kahan Das and Jinda Ram and that Hari Chand as their agent had made the entry in question.

2. The defence put forward by Jinda Ram was that the partnership had ended long before the entry in question was made, that the firm had no previous dealings with the plaintiff and that Hari Chand had no authority to raise the debt. Nor was any portion of the money so raised used for any purpose in which he was concerned.

3. Kahan Das admitted that he was a partner in the firm and that Hari Chand had authority on behalf of the firm to make the entry. He also admitted that he was a member of the firm and was liable for the debt, but pleaded that he had paid off his share of the debt and that he was HO longer liable to pay anything more to the plaintiff.

4. Hari Chand's defence was that he was a mere servant of the other two defendants and was not personally liable.

5. The Sub-Judge discharged Hari Chand holding that he was a servant and not a partner in the firm. He also held that the defence put forward by Kahan Das and Jinda Ram respectively had not been established. He accordingly passed a decree against both Kahan Das and Jinda Ram.

6. Against this decree Jinda Ram alone appealed to the learned Senior Sub-Judge raising the same pleas as he had urged in the trial Court. Kahan Das did not appeal and does not appear to have been present at the hearing. The learned Senior Sub-Judge accepted the contentions put forward on behalf of Jinda Ram and accepted the appeal, but instead of dismissing the suit against him alone, he dismissed it against Kahan Das also.

7. The plaintiff has come up to this Court on the revision side and on his behalf it is urged that the defences set up by Kahan Das and Jinda Ram ware separate, that the findings of the trial Court against Kahan Das had not been reversed by the learned Senior Sub-Judge; that Order 41, Rule 4 is inapplicable; and the Senior Sub-Judge ought not to have dismissed the suit against Kahan Das.

8. The findings of the lower appellate Court in favour of Jinda Ram are also attacked, but after hearing the petitioner's counsel I do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with this part of the case in revision. There is no material irregularity committed by the appellate Court in deciding the point on which the suit was dismissed against Jinda Ram. I, therefore, dismiss the revision as against him.

9. On behalf of Kahan Das I have heard Mr. Ghulam Rasul. But after giving due weight to his contentions I am of opinion that the petition must succeed so far as he is concerned. As pointed out already his defence was wholly different from that of Jinda Ram. He had clearly admitted his membership of the firm at the time when the entry was executed as also the authority of Hari Chand to raise the money on his behalf. He had preferred no appeal himself nor did Jinda Ram purport to appeal on his behalf. The grounds on which the appeal of Jinda Ram was accepted were wholly different from the defence set up by Kahan Das. The learned Senior Sub-Judge was not, therefore, justified in dismissing the suit as against Kahan Das.

10. Accordingly I accept the petition for revision to this extent that the suit of the plaintiff-petitioner against Kahan Das defendant-respondent will be decreed in lull with costs in the trial Court and in this Court, but the suit as against Jinda Ram and Hari Chand is dismissed.

11. Jinda Ram will have his costs from the petitioner in all Courts.