- (1.) In a suit for recovery filed by Punjab & Sind Bank, the present petitioners filed an application under Order 30 Rule 8 read with Section 151 CPC that they are not liable to pay the amount in question in any manner. This application was partly allowed. Still being not satisfied with the impugned order, they have preferred this revision petition.
(2.) The petitioners' case is that they have no right, title or interest in the firm known as M/s. Deluxe Saree House of which Harbhajan Singh (now deceased) was the sole proprietor. Their prayer to this extent was accepted. It was observed by the trial Court that they are partners of M/s. New Deluxe Saree House. This finding has been recorded by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence brought on the record because an issue whether defendants No. 1A to 1C were not the partners of the firm, was framed. It has come in evidence that M/s. New Deluxe Saree House is carrying on the business in the same house where M/s. Deluxe Saree House was doing the business. The fact of the same will be considered by the trial Court once the parties lead evidence on merits and it will be considered by the trial Court as to what extent the liability on the petitioners can be fastened. Whether they are liable being partners of the firm M/s. New Deluxe Saree House ? It is an admitted fact that petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the partners of M/s. New Deluxe Saree House. Thus, I find no infirmity in the impugned order which is supported by reasons. Resultantly, this revision petition is dismissed.;