Skip to content


Firm Swarath Ram and anr. Through Jagmohan Ram Vs. Sarup Lal Ram - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1914All474(1); 25Ind.Cas.131
AppellantFirm Swarath Ram and anr. Through Jagmohan Ram
RespondentSarup Lal Ram
Excerpt:
civil procedure code act (v of 1908), order xxx, rule 1 - suit in name of firm--firm must consist of two or more persons--plaint, whether can be signel and verified by one partner. - sunder lal, j.1. this was a suit brought by a firm carrying on business in the name of swarath ram-ram saran ram for the recovery of a sum of money said to be due to them. it is not denied that two or more persons are partners carrying on business under the said name. under order xxx, rule 1, two or more persons interested in bringing a suit in their own name are permitted to bring a suit in the name of the firm itself. all that this portion of the section requires is that there must be two or more persons carrying on bussiness in that name. it excludes the case of one single owner carrying on business in the name of the firm see mason & son v. mogridge (1892) 8 t.l.r. 805 . the suit, therefore, was properly instituted under this rule.2. the next question is, who should sign or verify the.....
Judgment:

Sunder Lal, J.

1. This was a suit brought by a firm carrying on business in the name of Swarath Ram-Ram Saran Ram for the recovery of a sum of money said to be due to them. It is not denied that two or more persons are partners carrying on business under the said name. Under Order XXX, Rule 1, two or more persons interested in bringing a suit in their own name are permitted to bring a suit in the name of the firm itself. All that this portion of the section requires is that there must be two or more persons carrying on bussiness in that name. It excludes the case of one single owner carrying on business in the name of the firm see Mason & Son v. Mogridge (1892) 8 T.L.R. 805 . The suit, therefore, was properly instituted under this rule.

2. The next question is, who should sign or verify the plaint in such cases? Under the law each partner is an agent for the other partners and he can sign the plaint for himself and as agent for the other co-partners. The plaint in this case is signed by one of them, Jagmohan. Under Clause 2 of this rule it is sufficient if the pleading is signed or verified by any one of such persons'. It is not necessary that all the partners or even two partners should sign or verify the plaint. The Court below is of opinion that at least two persons should have signed the plaint. The section consists of two portions which refer to two different matters. The first portion enacts when may such suits in the name of a firm be brought. It lays down as a necessary qualification that the firm must consist of two or more persons. The second portion provides who can sign and verify the plaint. The objects of these two portions are quite distinct. I think the signature and verification by Jagmohan was sufficient and the plaint was properly and verified. I set aside the decree c Court below, remand the case under rule. of Order XLI of the Code and direct that Court to restore the case to its list of pending cases and to hear and dispose of it according to law. Costs of this application will be costs in the cause.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //