ORDER
S.S. Subramani, J.
1. This revision petition is filed by the judgment-debtor against the order in E.P. No. 35 of 1999 in O.S. No. 51 of 1992 on the file of Subordinate Judge’s Court, Sivakasi.
2. Personal exeuction was ordered against the petitioner in execution of decree against the firm. The same is challenged in this revision on various grounds.
3. When the matter came up for admission, learned Judge of this Court directed petitioner to deposit half of the amount within four weeks. But, that order has not been complied with and the interim order was vacated. Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that decree cannot be executed as against petitioner personally since provisions of Order 21, Rule 50 had not been complied with. Argument of learned Counsel is that he has not been served individually and he has failed to appear. I do not find any merits in this submission.
4. Provisions regarding suit by or against the firm is provided under Order 30 of Code of Civil Procedure. Order 30 Rule 3 provides for service of summons on the partners. It says:
Where persons are sued as partners in the name or their firm, the summons shall be served either,
(a) upon any one or more of the partners, or
(b) at the principal place at which the partnership is carried on within India upon any person having, at the time of service, the control or management of the partnership business there, as the Court may direct; and such service shall be deemed good service upon the firm so sued, whether all or any of the partners are within or outside India.
Rule 5 of Order 30 further provides,
Where a summons is issued to a firm and is served in the manner provided by Rule 3, every person upon whom it is served shall be informed by notice in writing given at the time of such service, whether he is served as a partner or as a person having the control or management of the partnership business, or in both characters, and, in default of such notice, the person served shall be deemed to be served as a partner.
[Italics supplied]
5. In this case, the summons have been served on the petitioner thus:
M/s. Printing Guru and Guru Matches, represented by its Partner Sakthivel.
6. Sakthivel is the petitioner before this Court. Contention of petitioner is that he has not been served with summons individually and he failed to appear. When the summon itself is served not in the name of firm, but through its partner Sakthivel and it is accepted by him, it is clear that he has been individually served as partner, which makes him liable under Order 21, Rule 50 of Code of Civil Procedure. The impugned order is therefore correct when it held that execution application has been properly filed.
7. The only other question raised in the execution petition is whether he can be arrested in execution of the decree? I do not think that petitioner can contend that he cannot be arrested in execution of decree, so long as he is partner of the firm.
8. In Mandalasa Devi v. M. Ramnarain (P) Ltd. , their Lordships considered what is the effect of decree against a firm. Their Lordships said:
A suit by or in the name of a firm is really a suit by or in the name of all its partners. The decree passed in the suit, though in form against the firm, is in effect a decree against all the partners.
Their Lordships further went on and said,
Beyond doubt, in a normal case where all the partners of a firm are capable of being sued and of being adjudged judgment-debtors, a suit may be filed and a decree may be obtained against a firm under Order 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and such a decree may be executed against the property of the partnership and against all the partners by following the procedure of Order 21, Rule 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
[Italics supplied]
9. In view of the above decision, I do not find any merits in this revision petition is dismissed with costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 5461 of 1999 is also dismissed.