In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 1914 of 2008 Date of decision: March 31, 2009 Subhash Chander ... Petitioner vs. M/s Tarsem Lal Rajinder Kumar ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.C. Arora, Advocate for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J By way of the present petition filed with the aid of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the legality of the order dated 22.12.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mukatsar, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner filed against the order dated 15.1.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Mukatsar, dismissing the application of the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 15.12.1997. The factual background of the case is that M/s Tarsem Lal Rajinder Kumar, Mukatsar had instituted a suit against M/s Girdhar Rice Mills, Mukatsar, through its partners and others. One of the defendant was Subhash Chander (present petitioner). In the said suit the defendant firm was served, whereas, the present petitioner (who was defendant No.6 in the suit) was proceeded against ex-parte. The suit was decreed 0n 15.12.1997. Thereafter, the present petitioner moved an application on 17.4.1998 for setting aside the aforesaid judgment/decree. The admitted position between the parties is that though defendant No.6 in the main suit i.e. petitioner was partner of the defendant firm. The said firm duly served through Roshan Lal, whereas, the defendants No. 5to 7 had refused to accept service, whereupon, the Process Server had affixed the copy of the summons and the plaint at the door of the house of the defendant. There were six partners in all and four partners contested the suit. The petitioner in his cross-examination had admitted that Civil Revision No. 1914 of 2008 -2- *** he has been sleeping partner of the firm. Notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff was not properly served, yet as per Order 30 Rule 3 CPC, the service upon the firm through its partner was sufficient service. Order 30 Rule 3 CPC annunciates as under :- “(3) Service - Where persons are sued as partners in the name of 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 business 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 without India. Provided that, in the case of a partnership which has been dissolved to the knowledge of the plaintiff before the institution of the suit, the summons shall be served upon every person within India whom it is sought to make liable.” In the present case, the firm was duly served through Roshan Lal so as other partners. There is no dispute that at the relevant time, the firm was not dissolved, as such, service of the firm through one of the partners would amount sufficient service. The petitioner has been impleaded only being a partner of the firm and not in his individual capacity, as such, individual service upon the defendant was not essential. Consequently, finding no merits in the petition the same is dismissed with liberty to proceed against Roshan Lal if law so permits. March 31, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge