JUDGMENT

Tek Chand, J. - This is an appeal arising out of execution proceedings. The relevant facts are that the respondent instituted a suit against the firm of Ghumandi Lal-Lal Chand, piece goods merchants, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, through Lal Chand and Bhondu Mal (wrongly described in the plaint as Bunda Mal) as partners. The summonses were issued against the firm and were served on one Abad Bihari who held a power-of-attorney on behalf of Lal Chand and Bhondu Mal. Abad Bihari appeared and defended the suit, but none of' the partners attended the Court personally at any hearing. It is admitted by both counsel now that the lower Court is not right in saying that Bhondu Mal, partner, appeared personally on some occasions. A decree was in due course passed against the firm and the decree-holder applied for execution of the decree against both the partners personally. Bach of them objected that the decree could not be executed against him without the leave of the Court obtained under Order 21, Rule 50, Civil P.C., as he had not been served individually as a partner during the pendency of the suit. The lower Court has disallowed this objection and the present appeal is on behalf of Lal Chand.

2. It is contended that under Clause (1), Rule 50 execution could proceed against the appellant personally only if he had been individually served as a partner and had failed to appear and that this was not done in this case. I am, however, of opinion that there is no force in this contention. The summonses issued to the firm were duly served upon Abad Bihari who actually appeared in Court and produced a power-of-attorney executed by both Lal Chand and Bhondu Mal in his favour on 27th July 1924. Now this power-of-attorney is in the widest terms possible. It empowers him to act not only on behalf of the firm, but on behalf of each partner individually and jointly Service on him, therefore, was service upon each partner individually. Moreover under Order 30, Rule 5, read with Rule 3, where persons are sued as partners in the name of the firm and the summons is served either upon one or more of the partners or at the principal, place at which the partnership is carried on and no notice as required by the first part of Rule 5 has been given, the person served shall be deemed to have been served as a partner. Accordingly service on Abad Bihari must be held to be service upon each partner individually. Reference may in this connexion be made to a Division Bench ruling reported as Baishnab Charan Shaha v. Bank of Bengal [1915] 19 Cri.L.J. 581.

3. Mr. Sardha Ram has contended that in this case the appellant never appeared individually as contemplated by E. 6, Order 30, but it has been held that the word individually" in Rule 6 is not synonymous with "in person": see Bridges & Co. v. Shamas Din & Co. [1918] 78 P.R. 1918. I, therefore, find no force in this contention of the appellant's learned Counsel.

4. Lastly, Mr. Sardha Ram sought to argue that his client had left the firm long before the suit was instituted, but this plea was not raised during the trial and does not appear to have been argued before the lower Court, and cannot be allowed to be agitated in appeal for the first time.

5. For the foregoing reasons the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.