P.B.Mukharji, J. - (1.)This is a Chamber Summons taken out by the plaintiff Manilal fit Sons, a firm carrying on business at No. 11A, Malacca Street, Singapore for an amendment of the plaint. This Chamber Summons is dated January 31, 1957. The suit was instituted on or about March, 31, 1951. The application, therefore, is made after about six years. It is also made when the suit is on the peremptory daily list for disposal.
(2.)The nature of the amendment sought is to strike off the plaintiff firm altogether as the plaintiff and to introduce in its place the names of five partners, (1) Dayabhai Bikrambhai Patel, (2) Pravinbhai Dayabhai Patel, (3) Gangabeen Jshwar Bhai Patel. (4) Bachubhai Manibhai Amin and (5) Manibhai Maganbhai as carrying on business under the name of Manilal & Sons. The consequential amendments are also sought in the body of the plaint.
(3.)The reason for the amendment is that the plaintiff firm is admittedly a non-resident firm not carrying on business in India. Under Order 30, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is provided "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 etc......." Unless, therefore, the partners are carrying on business in India, the firm as such cannot be a plaintiff. It is, therefore, clear that without an amendment, this suit must fail. This is a well-known provision in the Code which is taken from Order 48A, Rule 1 of the Rules of the English Supreme Court. The foundation of this provision is the well-settled notion in jurisprudence that a firm name is a mere compendious expression and not a legal entity or Corporation and therefore, this permission to sue in the firm name as the plaintiff is the privilege which the statute has granted only in the case where the firm's partners carry on business in India.