CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

SUBJECT : DRAFTING, PLEADING AND

CONVEYANCING

TOPIC: SUIT BY OR AGAINST FIRM

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Dr.B.R.N. Sarma Gaurav Upadhyay

Roll no.-1409

BBA.LLB (4thyear)
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would sincerely like to thank our teacher Dr.B.R.N. Sarma for his valuable guidance and
support in understanding the project topic and moving ahead with the research work. It would
have been difficult to make this project but for his help and able guidance.

I would also like to thank all those who helped me in carrying out the research work with ease
and diligence. The information provided by them proved to be of great help in successful
completion of this project.

I would also like to thank my friends who assisted me in the research process and cherished me
with their useful suggestions.

Any suggestions for further improvement of the project are greatly acknowledged.

Gaurav Upadhyay

Roll: 1409

B.B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)

1|Page
 CONTENTS
 CHAPTER I- INTRODUCTION
 CHAPTER II- SUITS BY OR AGAINST CORPORATIONS (ORDER 29)
 CHAPTER III- SUITS BY OR AGAINST FIRM (ORDER 30)
 CHAPTER IV- MODEL FORMALITIES
 CHAPTER V- CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

INTRODUCTION
2|Page
The generic term for any filing of a complaint (or petition) asking for legal redress by judicial
action, often called a "lawsuit." In common parlance a suit asking for a court order for action
rather than a money judgment is often called a "petition," but technically it is a "suit in equity."
The procedure relating to the suits by or against firms is given in Order XXX of the Code. It
states that any two or more persons claiming or being liable as partners and carrying on business
in India may sue or be sued in the name of the firm (if any) of which such persons were partners
at the time of the accruing of the cause of action, and any party to a suit may in such case apply
to the court for a statement of the names and addresses of the persons who were, at the time of
the accruing of the cause of action partners in such firm, to be furnished and verified in such
manner as the court may direct. In a suit by or against a firm, the pleadings may be signed and
verified by anyone of the parties. (Order XXX, Rule 1).

OBJECTIVE:

1. To understand the concept and procedure of how a firm can sue or be sued.
2. Develop a thorough understanding of the topic

HYPOTHESIS:

The researcher attempts to establish that a firm or person carrying on business in names other
than their own is capable to file a suit and can be sued by others.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

The researcher has used the doctrinal method of research.

SOURCES OF DATA:

The researcher has used primary as well as secondary source of data.

3|Page
 SUITS BY OR AGAINST CORPORATION (ORDER 29)
A corporation is a legal entity that is separate and distinct from its owners. Corporations enjoy
most of the rights and responsibilities that an individual possesses; that is, a corporation has the
right to enter into contracts, loan and borrow money, sue and be sued, hire employees, own assets
and pay taxes. It is often referred to as a "legal person."
A corporation is created when it is incorporated by a group of shareholders who have ownership
of the corporation, represented by their holding of common stock, in order to pursue a common
objective. A corporation's objectives can be for profit or not, as is the case with charities.
However, the vast majority of corporations are set up with the goal of providing a return for its
shareholders. Shareholders, as owners of a percentage of the corporation, are only responsible for
the payment of their shares to the company's treasury upon issuance.

The term corporation is defined under Section 2 (11) of the Companies Act, 2013 as:
“body corporate” or “corporation” includes a company incorporated outside India, but does not
include—

(i) a co-operative society registered under any law relating to co-operative societies; and
(ii) any other body corporate (not being a company as defined in this Act),which the
Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf;1

The procedure for filing a suit by or against corporations is enumerated under Order 29 2 of the
Civil Procedure Code. It states:
A “corporation is a fictitious or imaginary person invested by law with the attribute of a person.
It can sue or be sued in its corporate name, for example, “A.B. Company Ltd. having its
registered office at...”

Rule 1 of Order 29 provides that in suits by or against corporation, any pleading may be signed
and verified by:

1
Bare Act, Companies Act, 2013
2
Bare Act, Civil Procedure Code

4|Page
 i. the secretary; or
ii. any director; or

iii. other principle officer of the corporation able to depose to the facts of the case.

Summons may be served as per Rule 2 of Order 29,

It states that:

Service on corporation- Subject to any statutory provision regulating service of process, where
the suit is against a corporation, the summons may be served—

(a) on the secretary, or on any director, or other principal officer of the corporation, or
(b) by leaving it or sending it by post addressed to the corporation at the registered office, or if
there is no registered office then at the place where the corporation carries on business.

The Court has the power require personal attendance of the officer of the corporation as
prescribed under Rule 3 of Order 29. It states that: “The court may, at any stage of the suit,
require the personal appearance of the secretary or of any director, or other principal officer of
the corporation who may be able to answer material questions relating to the suit.”

5|Page
 SUITS BY OR AGAINST FIRM
The procedure relating to the suits by or against firms is given in Order XXX of the Code. It
states that any two or more persons claiming or being liable as partners and carrying on business
in India may sue or be sued in the name of the firm (if any) of which such persons were partners
at the time of the accruing of the cause of action, and any party to a suit may in such case apply
to the court for a statement of the names and addresses of the persons who were, at the time of
the accruing of the cause of action partners in such firm, to be furnished and verified in such
manner as the court may direct. In a suit by or against a firm, the pleadings may be signed and
verified by anyone of the parties. (Order XXX, Rule 1).

Where the partnership has been dissolved to the knowledge of the plaintiff before the institution
of the suit, the summons is to be served upon every person within India whom it is sought, to
make liable. (Order XXX, Rule 3).

Where persons are sued as partners in the name of their firm they must appear individually in
their own names, as a firm cannot appear in the firm name; but all subsequent proceedings shall
nevertheless continue in the name of the firm. [Order XXX, Rule 4].

On the death of a partner, whether before the institution or during the pendency of any suit, it is
not necessary to join legal representative of the deceased as a party to the suit. (Order XXX, Rule
4).

The court remains very circumspect in dealing with the application of a third party seeking
impleadment when it is opposed by the plaintiff. Application of impleadment is generally
disallowed when it involves a de novo trial. Revision for impleadment becomes infructuous
when suit is already decreed and revisional court should not allow the impleadment.

In a suit by or against firm sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of Order XXX does not create any right of
impleadment of legal representatives of deceased partner. It cannot operate where Order I, Rule
10 is not applicable and it operates as an exception to sub-rule (l).

6|Page
In a suit for eviction against proprietary concern and two other persons, the proprietors had died
on date of institution of suit thereby it was not in existence on that date. A decree passed in such
suit is nullity and cannot be executed. The provisions of Rule 4, Order XXX are not applicable as
suit has been filed against dead persons.

In what capacity served:

Where a summons is issued to a firm, every person upon whom it is served shall be informed by
notice in writing giving at the time of such service in what character he is served, whether as a
partner or as a person having the control or management of the partnership business or in both
characters; and in default of such notice, the person served will be deemed to be served as a
partner. (Order XXX, Rule 5).

Appearance under protest:

Any person served with summons as a partner under Rule 3 may enter an appearance under
protest denying that he was a partner at any material time. On such appearance being made either
the plaintiff or the person entering the appearance may, at any time before the date fixed for
hearing and final disposal of the suit, apply to the court for determining whether that person was
a partner of the firm and liable as such.

If, on such application, the court holds that he was a partner at the material time that shall not
preclude the person from filing a defence denying the liability of the firm in respect of the claim
against the defendant.

If the court, however, holds that such person was not a partner of the firm and was not liable as
such, that shall not preclude the plaintiff from otherwise serving a summons on the firm and
proceeding with the suit; but in that event, the plaintiff shall be precluded from alleging the
liability of that person as a partner of the firm in execution of any decree that may be passed
against the firm. (Order XXX, Rule 8).

Order XXX shall apply to suits between a firm and one or more of the partners therein and to
suits between firms having one or more partners in common; but no execution shall be issued in
such suits except by leave of the court, and, on an application for leave to issue such execution,

7|Page
all such accounts and inquiries may be directed to be taken and made and directions given as
may be just. (Order XXX, Rule 9).

Any person carrying on business in a name or style than his own name or a Hindu undivided
family carrying on business under any name, may be sued in such name or style as if it were a
firm name, and, in so far as the nature of such case permits, all rules under Order XXX shall
apply accordingly. (Order XXX, Rule 10).

Suit for eviction against proprietary concern and two other persons filed. On the date of
institution of suit the proprietors had died. The suit is to be treated to have been filed against
dead person. Decree passed in such suit is nullity against the dead proprietor and cannot be
executed by impleading the legal representatives.

The provisions of Rule 10 of Order XXX enable the proprietary concern to be sued in the
business names of his proprietary concern. But really it is the proprietor of the said business who
is being sued. Only those provisions of Order XXX are applicable to proprietary business which
can be so much applicable seeing the nature of the case.

Order 303 deals with the procedure to file a suit by or against firm, it states:

1. Suing of partners in name of firm

1. Any two or more persons claiming or being liable as partners and carrying on
business in, [India] may sue or be sued in the name of the firm (if any) of which such
persons were partners at the time of the accruing of the cause of action, and any party
to a suit may in such case apply to the Court for a statement of the names and
addresses of the persons who were, at the time of the accruing of the cause of action,
partners in such firm, to be furnished and verified in such manner as the Court may
direct.
2. Where persons sue or are sued partners in the name of their firm under sub-rule (1), it
shall, in the case of any pleading or other document required by or under this Code to

3
Bare Act, Civil Procedure Code

8|Page
 be signed, verified or certified by the plaintiff or the defendant, suffice such pleading
or other document is signed, verified or certified by any one of such persons.

2. Disclosure of partners’ names

(1) Where a suit is instituted by partners in the name of their firm, the plaintiffs or their
pleader shall, on demanding writing by or on behalf of any defendant, forthwith
declare in writing the names and places of residence of all the persons constituting
the firm on whose behalf the suit is instituted.

(2) Where the plaintiffs or their pleader fail to comply with any demand made under sub-
rule (1) all proceedings in the suit may, upon an application for that purpose, be
stayed upon such terms as the Court may direct.

(3) Where the names of the partners are declared in the manner referred to in sub-rule (1)
the suit shall proceed in the same manner, and the same consequences in all respects
shall follow, as if they had been named as plaintiffs in the plaint :

[Provided that all proceedings shall nevertheless continue in the name of the firm, but the name
of the partners disclosed in the manner specified in sub-rule (1) shall be entered in the decree.]

3. Service

Where persons are sued as partners in the name of their firm, the summons shall be served
either-

(a) upon any one or more of the partners, or

(b) at the principal place at which the partnership business is carried on within
[India] upon any person having, at the time of service, the control or management of
the partnership business, there,

as the Court may direct; and such service shall be deemed good service upon the firm so sued,
whether all or any of the partners are within or without India:

9|Page
 Provided that, in the case of a partnership which has been dissolved to the knowledge of the
plaintiff before the institution of the suit, the summons shall be served upon every person
within India whom it is sought to make liable.

4. Rights of suit on death of partner

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 45 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9
of 1872) where two or more persons may sue or be sued in the name of a firm under
the foregoing provisions and any of such persons dies, whether before the institution
or during the pendency of any suit, it shall not be necessary to join the legal
representative of the deceased as a party to the suit.

(2) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall limit or otherwise effect any right which the legal
representative of the deceased may have-

(a) to apply to be made a party to the suit, or

(b) to enforce any claim against the survivor or survivors.

5. Notice in what capacity served

Where a summons is issued to a firm and is served in the manner provided by rule 3, every
person upon whom it is served shall be informed by notice in writing given at the time of such
service, whether he is served as a partner or as a person having the control or in both
characters, and, in default of such notice, the person served shall be deemed to be served as a
partner.

6. Appearance of partners

Where persons are sued as partners in the name of their firm, they shall appear individually in
their own names, but all subsequent proceedings shall, nevertheless, continue in the name of
the firm.

7. No appearance except by partners

10 | P a g e
 Where a summons is served in the manner provided by rule 3 upon a person having the control
or management of the partnership business, no appearance by him shall be necessary unless he
is a partner of the firm sued.

8. Appearance under protest

(1) Any person served with summons as a partner under rule 3 may enter an appearance
under protest, denying that he was a partner at any material time.

(2) On such appearance being made, either the plaintiff or the person entering the
appearance may, at any time before the date fixed for hearing and final disposal of the
suit, apply to the Court for determining whether that person was a partner of the firm
and liable as such.

(3) If, on such application, the Court holds that he was a partner at the material time, that
shall not preclude the person from filing a defence denying the liability of the firm in
respect of the claim against the defendant,

(4) If the Court. however, holds that such person was not a partner of the firm and was
not liable as such that shall not preclude the plaintiff from otherwise serving a
summons on the firm and proceeding with the suit; but in that event, the plaintiff
shall be precluded from alleging the liability of that person as a partner of the firm in
execution of any decree that may be passed against the firm.

9. Suits between co-partners

This Order shall apply to suits between a firm and one or more of the partners therein and to
suits between firms having one or more partners in common; but no execution shall be issued
in such suits except by leave of the Court, and, on an application for leave to issue such
execution, all such accounts and inquiries may be directed to be taken and made and directions
given as may be just.

10. Suit against person carrying on business in name other than his own

11 | P a g e
 Any person carrying on business in a name or style other than his own name, or a Hindu
undivided family carrying on business under any name, may be sued in such name or style as if
it were a firm name, and, in so far as the nature of such case permits, all rules under this Order
shall apply accordingly.

CASE LAWS
1. Gambhir Mal Pandlya Vs J.K.Jute Mills Company Limited4 :

The facts of the case are very simple M/s. J. K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd., ( the answering respondents)
entered into a contract with a firm, Messrs Birdhi Chand Sumer Mal, for the supply of certain
articles. The contract was entered into by one Seth Tikam Chand, a partner in the firm. One of
the terms of the contract was that in a case of a dispute between the parties, it would be referred
to the Merchants Chamber of Commerce, Kanpur, for arbitration. It appears that a dispute arose,
which was referred to the Chamber of Commerce, and an award in favour of the Mills was given
on January 8, 1947. Two years later, the award was made into a rule of the Court, and a decree,
followed in favour of the Mills. The firm of Birdhi Chand Sumer Mal consisted of two partners;
the other partner was one Mr. Pandiya, the predecessor-in-interest of Seth Gambir Mal Pandiya
the appellant. In execution of the decree passed against the firm, the Mills wished to proceed
against the personal property of Mr. Pandiya, and filed an application for the leave of the Court
under O.21, R. 50(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In answer to the notice which was issued,
the appellant Seth Gambir Mal Pandiya, appeared and raised objections. He contended that he
had not been served in the proceedings relating to the arbitration; nor of the making and the
filing of the award in Court. He also contended that Seth Tikam Chand, who had signed the
contract containing the arbitration clause with the Mills, had no authority to enter into an
agreement containing such a clause or to refer the dispute to arbitration on behalf of the other
partner. He, therefore, maintained that the award was not binding on him.
The contentions of the appellant were not accepted by the First Civil Judge, Kanpur, who
allowed the application of the Mills and granted them leave under the rule. The appellant then
4
1963 AIR 243, 1963 SCR (2) 190

12 | P a g e
filed an application for revision in the High Court of Allahabad, which was heard by C. B.
Agarwala and Beg. JJ. Agarwala, J. held that although the decree passed against the firm was to
be deemed to have been passed against all the individual partners thereof, it was binding proprio
vigore only against the partnership property and personally against those persons who are
mentioned in clause. (b) and (c) of R. 50(1), O.21, and that the decree was not binding against
the appellant, who had not been served in the suit and would be binding only when a summons
was served upon him to appear under sub-r (2) and his liability was determined. The reason
given by the learned Judge was that a person who was not served in the suit could question his
personal liability under the decree, even though he admitted himself to be a partner, upon any
ground which was open to him if he had been served in the suit, and that such a person could
raise the objection that as the decree was the result of an award which was based upon an
agreement of reference to arbitration to which he was not a party, he was not personally liable
under the decree. Beg J., on the other hand, held that inasmuch as the appellant admitted that he
was a partner in the firm of Birdhi Chand Sumer Mal, he was not entitled to raise any objection
either to the contract or the reference to arbitration or the award. The learned Judges having
disagreed about the interpretation to be placed on sub-r (2) of R. 50, the case was laid before
Mukherji, J. He agreed with the conclusion of Beg. J. and in accordance with his opinion.The
application for revision was dismissed.

2. Purushottam Umedbhai & Co. v. Manilal and Sons5 :

Facts- The plaint in Suit No. 1452 of 1951 was filed in the name of Manilal & Sons, a firm
carrying on business at No. 11A, Malacca Street, Singapore. The defendant was the firm of
Purushottam Umedbhai & Co. (now the appellant) – a firm registered under the Indian
Partnership Act, 1932 – carrying on business at No. 55 Canning Street, Calcutta. In July, 1949,
there was a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant under which the defendant was to
sell to the former, subject to certain conditions, 950 bales of Heavy Cees gunny bags c.i.f.
Singapore to be shipped from Calcutta in August, 1949. It was also agreed between the plaintiff
and the defendant in July-August, 1949, that the latter would sell, subject to certain conditions,
600 bales of Heavy Cees gunny bags c.i.f. Hong Kong to be shipped from Calcutta in August,
1949. According to the plaintiff, the defendant did not perform the contract entered into by the
5
1961 AIR 325, 1961 SCR (1) 982

13 | P a g e
parties and as a result of the default on the part of the defendant the plaintiff had suffered loss.
The appellant filed a complaint against the respondent alleging that the complaint was not valid
on the account of it being filed by an attorney employed by one of the partner and thus alleged
that the complaint is null and void.

Legal Issue- The matter which was decided was whether the attorney employed by one of the
partner was acting within the implied authority of all the partners of the firm.

Judgment- The Supreme Court of India held that the attorney is legally authorized to institute a
complaint on the part of the firm, notwithstanding the fact that it was employed by one of the
partner with or without the consent of the other partners. Justice Imam further reiterated the fact
that since such attorney was acting for the benefit of the firm and thus is entitled as per law to
file such complaint. In addition, such partner acting on the behalf of other partners was under an
implied authority to employ such legal attorney to settle dispute. Hence, such complaint was
allowed by the Court and finally turned in the favour of appellant.

14 | P a g e
 MODEL DRAFT

Model Draft 1:

Partnership

(Title)

A.B., the above-named plaintiff, states as follows:—

1. He and C.D., the defendant, have been for . . . . . . years [or months] past carrying on business
together under articles of partnership in writing [or under a deed, or under a verbal agreement].

2. Several disputes and differences have arisen between the plaintiff and defendant as such
partners whereby it has become impossible to carry on the business in partnership with
advantage to the partners, [Or the defendant has committed the following breaches of the
partnership articles:—

(1)

(2)

(3) . . . . . . .]

[As in paras 4 and 5 of Form No. 1.]

5. The plaintiff claims—

(1) dissolution of the partnership;

15 | P a g e
(2) that accounts be taken;

(3) that a receiver be appointed.

(N.B.—In suits for the winding-up of any partnership, omits the claim for dissolution; and
instead insert a paragraph stating the facts of the partnership having been dissolved.)

Model Draft 2:

FACTS (Partnership Deed)

Shri. ABC, aged about 40 years, and Shri. DEF, aged about 45 years, and Shri. GHI, aged about
35 years are the partners in the firm M/s AD and Company having its registered office at
Sitabuldi, Nagpur. All of them are residents of Sitabuldi, Nagpur. The Partnership Deed was
entered into 2nd Jan,2012. Each of these partners have contributed Rs. 50,000/- each towards the
share capital of the partnership firm. The company is engaged in the business of Retail sale of
cloth. Accounts were being managed and maintained by Shri. GHI. As per the terms of the
agreement, no partner can engage themselves in any other business or activity of like nature as
that of partnership firm. On 15th Dec,2012, Shri. ABC came to know that Shri.DEF and Shri.
GHI are running a business activity which is similar to that of Partnership Firm i.e. retail sale of
cloth. As the activity of Shri. DEF and Shri.GHI are in violation of terms of Partnership Deed,
Shri. ABC issued a notice to Shri. DEF and Shri. GHI through his advocate Mr. PQR on 20th

Dec, 2012 for dissolution of Partnership Firm. Now, Shri. ABC decided to file a suit for
dissolution of Partnership Firm and rendition of accounts.

FORMAT:

<<SPACE FOR COURT FEE STAMPS>>

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, JUNIOR DIVISION NAGPUR.

Regular Civil Suit No.:..............of...................

16 | P a g e
Plaintiff: ABC Aged about...........years,
occupation business partner of
M/S A.D. & Co. Sitabuldi, Nagpur.

- VERSUS-

Defendants: 1. DEF, aged about..........years,

occupation business and partner in M/S A.D. & Co. Sitabuldi, Nagpur.
2. GHI, aged about..........years,
occupation business and partner in M/S A.D. & Co, Sitabuldi, Nagpur.

SUIT FOR DISSOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP AND RENDITION OF ACCOUNTS.

The Plaintiff named above most humbly begs to submit as under-

That the Plaintiff and the Defendants are the partners of M/s. A. D. & Company who have
entered into the partnership business in the name and style, MIS. A.D. & Company, under the
Partnership Deed Dated..........having its registered office at Sitabuldi, Nagpur.

2. The said partnership is a partnership at will. The business of the partnership is the retail sale of
cloth. As per the terms agreement, the Plaintiff and the Defendant have contributed Rs. 50,000/-
each towards the capital and the Defendant No.2 is liable to maintain the accounts of the firm.
The account books of the firm are in possession of the Defendant No.2 and this Plaintiff has no
access to the same. As per the terms of agreement, no partner is allowed to engage in any other
business of like nature.

3. On..........the Plaintiff has observed that the Defendant No.1 and 2 have engaged themselves in
the business of readymade cloth which relates to the business of partnership firm. This act of
doing business by the partners of the firm is not conducive to the partnership business.

4. That, this Plaintiff has asked the Defendants about the said business but the Defendants were
irritated with this Plaintiff. It has, therefore, become necessary for this Plaintiff to discontinue
from the said partnership firm. The Defendants have committed breach of partnership agreement
and have misappropriated money of the partnership firm and have not rendered its true accounts.

5. The Plaintiff, therefore, wants to leave the partnership and dissolve the same. The Plaintiff has
issued a notice to the Defendants through his Advocate Shri..........which has been duly served on
the Defendants.

17 | P a g e
6. The Plaintiff is entitled to an amount of Rs........... which is contributed by him towards the
capital of the firm and against the share of profit in the

business. If on disclosure of the accounts by the Defendants, it is found that the share of profit is
more than the estimate of the Plaintiff, then this Plaintiff would pay additional court fee on the
said amount.

The cause of action for the suit arose on……….when, the notice was issued to the Defendants.
The suit is thus within the limitation.

That this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit as the Plaintiff and the
Defendants are residing at Nagpur within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

That, the Plaintiff has valued the claim in suit at Rs...........and the court fee of Rs...........is paid
thereon.

PRAYER :

It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this

Hon'ble Court be pleased to :

A. Declare that the partnership of the firm M/s. A.D.&

Company stands dissolved from the date of notice
i.e. on..........

B. Accounts of partnership firm from the date of it’s commencement

till dissolution and the plaintiff’s share be rendered.

C. Allow this suit with costs.

D. Grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper
in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Nagpur

Dated

PLAINTIFF

Advocate for Plaintiff.

VERIFICATION

18 | P a g e
Verified and signed at Nagpur on this…..th day of …………… that the contents of the above
plaint contained in paras 1 to 9 are true to my personal knowledge, information and belief.

PLAINTIFF

CONCLUSION

Thus in suits by or against firms and persons carrying on business in names other than their own,
a suit may be instituted by or against any 2 or more persons claiming to be partners in a
partnership firm in the name of the firm provided such persons, were partners in the firm on the
date when the cause of action occurred.

Any party to such a suit may apply to the court for a statement of the names & addresses of all
the partners of the firm as on the date of occurrence the cause of action. The court shall direct
such a statement to be furnished and verified in a specific manner.

The proceedings in the suit shall then continue in the firm's name but the final decree shall
contain the names of the partners and all consequences shall follow as if the suit has been against
the partners individually. Also the partners will appear individually in their own names in all
court proceedings.

Similarly, a suit may also be instituted by or against any person or any Hindu, Undivided family,
carrying on any business in a name other than his own name, in the same manner as against a
partnership firm.

19 | P a g e
When two or more persons are surd in the name of the firm and any of them dies, during
the pendency of the suit or before institution of the suit then it is not necessary to make his legal
representative a party to the suit.

However, the legal representative can make an application, to be made a party and can also
enforce any claim against the surviving partners.

A partner served summons can appear in the court under protest that he was not a partner of the
firm when the cause of action accrued and he can apply to the court for determination of such a
question any time before the date of hearing and final disposal of the suit.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The information for this project has been obtained from the following:

Books:

 Drafting, Pleading and Conveyancing by Dr. S.R. Myneni

 Drafting and Conveyancing by S.P.Agarwal
 Code of Civil Procedure by M.P. Jain

Websites:

 http://ecourts.gov.in

20 | P a g e
21 | P a g e