D.K. Seth, J. - (1.) A preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition by a firm was taken by Mr. Prakash Gupta relying on the decision in the case of M/s. Agarwal Stone Mill v. U. P. State Electricity Board, 1993 (2) AWC 895 (DB) ; M/s. Agarwal Stone Mills v. U.P.S.E.B. , wherein it has been held that a writ petition cannot be maintained in the name of the firm even if it is registered under Section 59 of the Partnership Act in the course of his submission, he admitted that a firm can sue and be sued in the Civil Court by the name of the firm but because of Section 141 of the Civil P. C., the provision contained therein is not applicable in a writ proceeding. Therefore, though the present case arises out of civil proceedings, but the present application being the one under Article 226 of the Constitution, the same is not maintainable.
(2.) In reply, Mr. K. G. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, without entering into the contention, prayed for leave to amend the cause title so as to convert the application under Article 227 of the Constitution and treat the application as one under Article 227 of the Constitution. Such leave is granted.
(3.) The second preliminary objection raised by Mr. Gupta was that the affidavit in support of the petition was affirmed by one Durga Prasad who has described himself in the writ petitions as an attorney whereas in the affidavit he has described himself to be the petitioner in the writ petition. The said objection is purely a technical objection. The mistake might have been committed due to loose drafting by the counsel concerned. The said objection, therefore, is not worth dealing with and, as such, overruled.;