TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said suit, nobody appeared on behalf of the defendants and an ex parte decree was passed on 28-9-1993. The respondents thereafter moved for execution of the said decree. Before the executing court, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the decree was a nullity and it could not be executed for the reason that the Proprietor of Ashok Transport Agency had already died on the date of the institution of the suit and that the decree was passed against a dead person. The Munsif Sadar, Sitamarhi, by order dated 13-7-1994 upheld the said objection raised by the appellants and dismissed the execution petition on the view that the decree having been passed against a dead person was a nullity and it could not be executed. The revision file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the institution of the suit, the suit filed by the respondents cannot be held to be non-maintainable and that the decree passed in that suit cannot be regarded as a nullity. The learned counsel has submitted that by virtue of Order XXX Rule 10 CPC, the other provisions of Order XXX would be applicable to a proprietary concern and that in view of Rule 4 of Order XXX the suit filed by the respondents without impleading the legal representatives of A.C. Basu, the Proprietor of Ashok Transport Agency was maintainable. 6. A partnership firm differs from a proprietary concern owned by an individual. A partnership is governed by the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Though a partnership is not a juristic person but Order XXX ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titution of the suit, the proprietary concern was not in existence. Only the legal representatives of A.C. Basu could be sued with regard to any cause of action arising against A.C. Basu in connection with the proprietary business. We find it difficult to understand how the provisions of Rule 4 Order XXX CPC, could be extended to such a case. 8. Shri Vikas Singh has also urged that actually the rent was being paid by the Manager and, therefore, the Manager can be treated as a tenant. There is no basis for holding that the Manager was the tenant because admittedly the tenancy was taken in the name of Ashok Transport Agency and rent was also paid in the name of Ashok Transport Agency. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Manager had take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
