CPC, 1908 — O. XXI R. 50(2), r/w O. XXX R. 3 — Execution of decree against a partnership firm — Liability of non-impleaded partner — If decree is passed against a firm, service of summons on the firm constitutes good service on all partners unless dissolution to plaintiff’s knowledge is pleaded. A partner not served in the suit can be proceeded against in execution with leave under O. XXI R. 50(2). [Paras 21–28; Ashutosh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2005 SC 3443; Gambhir Mal Pandiya, AIR 1963 SC 243] Partnership Act — Joint and several liability of partners — In a decree against a firm, each partner is personally liable for the decretal debt, except a minor. A creditor may recover entire debt from any partner. [Para 20; Sahu Rajeshwar Rao v. ITO, AIR 1969 SC 667]

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — S. 100 — Second Appeal — Scope of interference —
Held, High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact of the first appellate Court except where conclusions are (i) contrary to mandatory statutory provisions, or (ii) contrary to settled law declared by Supreme Court, or (iii) based on inadmissible evidence, or (iv) arrived at without evidence.
[Para 15; Bhagwan Sharma v. Bani Ghosh, AIR 1993 SC 398; Kondira Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar, AIR 1999 SC 471]

CPC, 1908 — O. XXI R. 50(2), r/w O. XXX R. 3 — Execution of decree against a partnership firm — Liability of non-impleaded partner —
If decree is passed against a firm, service of summons on the firm constitutes good service on all partners unless dissolution to plaintiff’s knowledge is pleaded. A partner not served in the suit can be proceeded against in execution with leave under O. XXI R. 50(2).
[Paras 21–28; Ashutosh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2005 SC 3443; Gambhir Mal Pandiya, AIR 1963 SC 243]

Partnership Act — Joint and several liability of partners —
In a decree against a firm, each partner is personally liable for the decretal debt, except a minor. A creditor may recover entire debt from any partner.
[Para 20; Sahu Rajeshwar Rao v. ITO, AIR 1969 SC 667]

CPC, 1908 — O. XXI R. 50 — Execution — Leave to proceed against partner — Standard of enquiry —
Partner summoned under O. XXI R. 50(2) may contest only on limited grounds: (i) he is not a partner; (ii) decree is result of collusion or fraud. He cannot reopen the decree nor raise inter se partnership disputes.
[Para 27; Gambhir Mal Pandiya, AIR 1963 SC 243]

CPC, 1908 — S. 11 — Res judicata —
Dismissal of earlier execution petition does not bar subsequent execution applications until decree debt is fully discharged. Res judicata does not apply.
[Para 29]

CPC, 1908 — O. XLI R. 27 — Additional Evidence —
Additional documents pertaining to other execution petitions filed long after decree and after dismissal of appeal do not satisfy conditions of O. XLI R. 27(1)(a), (aa) or (b). No exceptional circumstances shown.
[Paras 34–35]
Held, application for additional evidence dismissed.

Second Appeal — No substantial question of law —
Findings of two Courts below upholding the decree holder’s right to obtain leave to proceed against appellant-partner upheld. No substantial question arises.
[Para 30]

Result —
Second Appeal dismissed. I.A.No.1 of 2025 dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
[Paras 31, 36]