The liability of partners in a firm remains joint and several, and cannot be extinguished merely by a change in partnership.

1. This dispute relates to 2004, we are in 2018.
Heard Mr. Anand Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the revisionist firm; also heard Mr. K. V. Girish Chowdary, learned Counsel for the stated new partners of the revisionist firm; and also heard Ms. Ranjan Doshi, learned Counsel for the respondents - complainants.

2. Perused the material on record.

The brief facts, shorn of unnecessary detail, are that the complainants, Mr. Hasmukh Gala, Mr. Harakchand Gala, Mrs. Geetaben K. Patel, Smt. Leenaben M. Patel and Mrs. Jyoti V. Kulkarni, booked galas (shops) bearing Nos. 18, 17, 14, 15 and 19 respectively and paid Rs. 1,50,000 , Rs. 1,50,000, Rs. 2,40,000, Rs. 2,40,000 and Rs. 1,50,000 respectively to the revisionist firm, by way of part consideration. The price of gala Nos. 18, 17 and 19 was Rs. 2,00,000 each, the price of gala Nos. 14 and 15 was Rs. 2,90,000 each. All the purchasers - complainants were supposed to pay the remaining amounts of Rs. 50,000 each to the revisionist firm at the time of delivery of possession of the galas. In spite of substantial payments, the revisionist firm failed to deliver the possession of the galas. The purchasers - complainants filed complaints bearing Nos. 301 to 305 of 2004 before the District Forum, Kolhapur. The complaints were allowed by the District Forum vide its Order dated 5.7.2005, and the appeals were dismissed by the State Commission vide its Order dated 10.4.2008.

3. This revision has been filed by the revisionist firm under S.21(b) of the Act 1986, against the impugned Order dated 10.4.2008 of the State Commission.

4. Mr. Anand Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the revisionist firm has filed an application dated 3.3.2015 stating that:

1. The applicant is Petitioner 2 herein named, who have filed above said Revision Petition, who are builders / developers, along with the Petitioner 1, Kolhapur Sports Association and the same is pending disposal.

2. The Applicant / petitioner 2, states that during the pendency of the said Revision Petition, the Petitioner 2, viz. M/s. Karan Associates, a Partnership Firm, has undergone complete change as all the old partners have retired as per the Deeds of Partnership dated 1.1.2013 and 19.1.2013 and in place of the old partners, new partners have come who have taken over all the assets and liabilities and are looking after the affairs of the said firm. A copy of the Partnership Deed dated 1.1.2013 and 19.1.2013 is being relied upon, a self attested copy of which is annexed hereto as Annexure 1 Colly.

3. The Applicants state that as per the said new partnership deed, the old partners, i.e. (1) Mr. Murlidhar Pandurang Jadhav, (2) Sou. Surekha Murlidhar Jadhav and (3) Sou. Deepika Jadhav, have all retired from the said firm and in their place, new partners who are now looking after all the affairs of the said firm, whose details are as under:

4. The Applicants / Petitioners since all the old partners, including those who had signed the Petition and the Vakalatnama have retired from the Partnership firm, it is now necessary to put the names of the new partners on record so as to enable them to be noticed as any order passed will affect the new partners.

5. In the circumstances it is most humbly prayed that notices be issued to the new partners of the Petitioner 2 firm, who are now responsible for day - to - day affairs of the Petitioner 2 firm whose names and addresses are given hereinabove and oblige.

(underlining supplied by us)

The application is self - evidently to evade / shift / extinguish liability.

5. The stated new partners, (i) Mr. Sameer Kantilal Shah, (ii) Mr. Suresh Devappa Tanage and (iii) Mr. Rajendra Vijayrao Chavan, of the revisionist firm have filed a writ