A newly admitted partner to a firm cannot be held liable for debts incurred prior to their admission; determination of liability requires full trial.

ORAL ORDER

Both these petitions by the plaintiff in Com.O.S.No.225/2024 on the file of the Commercial Court.

W.P.No.18902/2025 is directed against the impugned order dated 30.09.2024 passed on I.A.No.5 by the learned LXXXVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Commercial Court at Bangalore in Comm.O.S.No.225/2024.

W.P.No.18905/2025 is directed against the impugned order dated 16.04.2025 passed on I.A.Nos.9 to 11 by the learned LXXXVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Commercial Court at Bangalore in Comm.O.S.No.225/2024.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against seven defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,12,32,776/- together with interest jointly and severally as against all the defendants. In the said suit, in addition to filing their written statement, the defendant No.5 filed an application-I.A.No.5 seeking deletion from the array of parties to the suit. So also, defendant Nos.4, 6 and 7 filed applications-I.A.Nos.9 to 11 seeking their deletion from the array of parties. By the impugned order, the Trial Court allowed I.A.Nos.5, 9, 10 and 11 thereby deleting defendant Nos.5, 4, 6 and 7, respectively from the array of parties to the suit. Aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court deleting defendant Nos.4 to 7 from the array of parties, the petitioner – plaintiff is before this Court by way of the present petitions.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and submits that the various contentions urged by defendant Nos.4 to 7 in their written statement as well as in their Affidavits filed in support of the applications are seriously disputed and denied by the petitioner in his statement of objections and since the petitioner has filed the suit seeking joint and several liability against all defendants including defendant Nos.4 to 7, the said issue as regards the alleged liability of defendant Nos.4 to 7 would necessarily have to be decided only after a full-fledged trial, the question of deleting defendant Nos.4 to 7 from the array of parties without permitting the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence and without going to trial, is contrary to the principles governing addition / deletion of parties and as such, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.5 – defendant No.5 in W.P.No.18902/2025 would invite my attention to the material on record in order to point out that defendant No.5 had resigned from the partnership firm on 22.01.2024 and as such, the plaintiff having filed the suit on 08.02.2024 after resignation of defendant No.5 from the status of partner was not maintainable as against defendant No.5 and as such, defendant No.5 deserved to be deleted from the array of parties and the impugned order passed by the Trial Court deleting defendant No.5 does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition.

6. So also, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4, 6 and 7 – defendant Nos.4, 6 and 7 in W.P.No.18905/2025 submits that they were admitted into the respondent No.1 – defendant No.1 / partnership firm after the subject transaction in question and as such, defendant Nos.4, 6 and 7 are not liable towards the plaintiff, in any sum whatsoever and there is no cause of action for the suit against them and they are liable to be deleted from the array o