FIRM NARAIN DAS MANGAL SEN Vs. ANAND BEHARI MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to this first appeal in brier are that the plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant on 19-9-49 for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 7379/4/9. The suit was instituted in the name of "firm Narain Das Mangalsen. " During its pendency in the trial Court, mid about 4 years after its institution on 23-2-53, the defendant applied under Order 30, Rule 2, C. P. C. , for the disclosure of the names of the partners. In reply to the application for disclosure of the names, the plaintiffs said that Order 30, R. 2 did not apply to the suit, because the plaintiff firm was not a partnership firm but was a joint family trading firm. The plaintiffs, however, disclosed the names of such members of the joint family firm, who were major and stated that Mangalsen was the Karta of the joint Hindu family Firm, and that Naraindas. who had filed the suit, was the Mukhtaram of mangalsen, the Karta. The defendant again applied to the Court on 26-3-53 for the disclosure of the names of the minor members of the family as well. On 2-4-53, the plaintiff also disclosed the names of the minor members of the firm. Although the disclosure of the names was thus made on the demand of the defendant, yet the trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground mat the minors, whose names were disclosed on 26-3-53, were necessary parties and as their names were added on 26-3-53, the suit had become time-barred. It is against this dismissal of the suit that the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) THE trial Court has based its decision on a case reported in Bhairo Bux Mangilal v. Deokaran, AIR 1934 Cal 253 (A), in which Amir Ali, J. , has held that

(3.) WITH great respect to the learned Judge, I beg to differ from the view he has taken in the case referred to above, for the reason stated below :