IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 CRP.No. 1481 of 2003() ---------------------- AS.405/1999 of DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR OS.383/1993 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT IN A.S.NO.405/99/2ND DEFENDANT: ---------------------- AJAYAKUMAR, S/O. SREEDHARAN, S.V.M. HOSPITAL, VARANTHARAPPILLY, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE SRI.DILIP MOHAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN A.S.NO.405/99/PLAINTIFF: ------------------ 1. MAMMYKUTTY, S/O. VYYATTUKAVIL MUHAMMED, PALLIPPURAM DESOM, KARAKKAD AMSOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. 2. SURYA AYURVEDIC PRODUCTS, ATTAVALLIKADAVU, NANDIPURAM, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 3. K.S. KOCHUMON, S/O. K.K. SANGU, KALLUPALATHINGAL VEEDU, THAIKKATTUSSERY, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) FOR R1 SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN FOR R3 SMT.P.A.ANITHA FOR R3 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.No.1481 of 2003 ------------------------------- Dated this the 20th June, 2008. O R D E R Second defendant in O.S.No.383 of 1993, on the file of the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda, is the petitioner. First respondent is the plaintiff. Petitioner and 3rd respondent were admittedly partners of the second respondent/first defendant, Surya Ayurvedic Products. It is also the admitted case that first respondent supplied bottles to the second respondent and towards the value of the bottles, amount claimed in the plaint were due. It is for realisation of that amount, first respondent instituted the suit. Appellant admitted the liability, but contended that subsequent to the transaction with first respondent, the partnership was dissolved and third respondent has taken the entire liability, and, therefore, petitioner is not liable. He has also contended that even if petitioner is also liable, first respondent is entitled to realise the claim from the petitioner only after exhausting the remedy against third respondent. Learned Sub Judge, on the evidence, granted a decree against all the defendants, without accepting the case of petitioner that because of the dissolution of the CRP.No.1481/2003 2 partnership, he is not liable or that he can be proceeded only after exhausting the remedy against third respondent. Petitioner challenged the judgment before the District Court, Thrissur, in A.S.No.405/1999. The learned District Judge heard the appeal along with appeal filed by respondents 2 and 3 (A.S.No.383/1999). By a common judgment, he dismissed all the appeals, confirming the decree granted by the trial court. It is challenged in this petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that courts below did not properly consider the contentions of the petitioner. It was argued that third respondent having taken over the entire assets and liabilities of the second respondent firm, and as the partnership firm stood dissolved on 1.4.1993, petitioner is not liable, and in any case, petitioner can be proceeded only after exhausting the remedy against third respondent. CRP.No.1481/2003 3 On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any illegality of irregularity in the impugned judgments warranting interference in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court. Section 25 of the Partnership Act provides that, every partner is liable, jointly with all other partners and also severally, for the acts of the firm done while he is a partner. Admittedly, the transaction whereunder amount is due to first respondent/plaintiff was much prior to the date of dissolution of the firm as claimed by the petitioner. As provided under Section 25 of the Partnership Act, petitioner is liable for the liability just like the third respondent. Though learned counsel appearing for petitioner relied on Section 45 of the Partnership Act, as rightly pointed out by the District Judge, Section 45 of the Partnership Act has no application, with regard to the liability incurred by the firm prior to the dissolution of the firm. In such circumstances, revision petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.