Execution against partners' personal assets barred where decree limits relief to firm property and the executing court cannot enlarge it.

A decree against a firm must be construed as a whole, and where its terms expressly confine execution to partnership property in the hands of the partners, it cannot be treated as creating personal liability against the partners. The executing court is bound by the decree as passed and has no power to go behind it or enlarge the liability fixed by it. Reading the decree with the pleadings and trial court judgment confirmed that personal relief against the partners had been refused and execution was limited to firm assets. On that construction, the decree could not be executed against the personal properties of the partners, and the Supreme Court affirmed the order under challenge.

---

---

Issues: Whether a decree passed against a firm, as framed in the suit, could be executed against the personal properties of the partners when the decree expressly confined relief to the firm property in their hands, and whether the executing court could go behind the decree to impose personal liability on the partners.

Analysis: The decree had to be read as a whole. Its first part granted relief against the firm, while the second part expressly limited execution to such property of the firm as might be found in the hands of the partners. That wording could not be treated as surplusage, because a decree against a firm without further limitation would ordinarily attract execution against partnership property under Order XXI, Rule 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decree therefore reflected an intentional restriction and, at the least, could not be read as authorising a personal decree against the partners. Even if any ambiguity remained, the pleadings and judgment of the trial court showed that personal relief against the partners had been expressly refused and execution was confined to partnership assets. An executing court is bound to take the decree as it stands and cannot enlarge the liability fixed by it.

Conclusion: The decree could not be executed against the personal properties of the partners, and the executing court was not entitled to go behind the decree.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the order of the High Court was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: An executing court cannot ignore or enlarge the terms of a decree; where the decree, on a proper construction, limits execution to partnership assets, personal liability of partners cannot be enforced in execution.

---