1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No.220 of 2008 In Writ Petition No.2024 of 2008 (Decided) [Smt. Kiranrani wd/o Suryakantlal Chaurasia and others .vrs. The Chief Manager, Bank of India, Nagpur and another] ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. A.A. Naik, Advocate for the appellants, Mr. A.V. Khare, Advocate for respondent no.1. .......... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ DATED : OCTOBER 14, 2008 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for respondent no.1. 2. A notice of eviction was issued on 14.12.2005 against M/s. Babulal and Sons. Before issuance of the notice of eviction, some of the partners namely Kamalnarayan Babulal Chaurasia, Rameshchandra Kamalnarayan Chaurasia, Suryakantlal Kamalnarayan Chaurasia and Ashishchandra Rameshchandra Chaurasia had died. Notices on the partners, 2 who were alive on that date, were however served. The legal representatives of one of the deceased partners, namely, Suryakantlal Kamalnarayan Chaurasia contested the matter. Thus, the persons interested in the matter were duly served and were heard. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Chhotelal Pyarelal, the partnership firm and others .vrs. Shikharchand, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1570, in order to emphasise that no application for eviction could have been maintained against the firm in the firm name since the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to the eviction proceedings. However, in the very same judgment, it was observed that it was merely a case of misdescription of the respondents to the application which can be corrected at any stage of the proceedings. 4. In the present case the partners, who were alive on the date of issuance of eviction notice, were duly served as well as the legal representatives of deceased Suryakantlal Kamalnarayan Chaurasia (who was one of the deceased 3 partners of the said firm) also contested the matter. Thus, in the present case misdescription of the respondents does not render the order of eviction illegal. Hence, we see no merit in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande