Limited execution objections in firm-decree cases: protected partners, nullity, and no reopening of merits.

A suit brought in a firm name under Order 30 CPC may still proceed against partners not protected by a statutory consent bar, but it is ineffective against the protected partner to the extent consent was required and absent. In execution under Order 21, Rule 50(2) CPC, the judgment-debtor may challenge partnership status, nullity, fraud or collusion, but cannot reopen the merits of the original claim. The execution court's inquiry is therefore limited, and objections based on defences unavailable at that stage do not defeat leave to proceed against the firm's assets or the non-protected partners.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the absence of the Central Government's consent under Section 86 read with Section 87-B of the Code of Civil Procedure rendered the suit and the decree against the firm wholly void or only ineffective against the protected partner; (ii) whether an application under Order 21, Rule 50(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure could be resisted by reopening the merits of the underlying claim or by raising the plea that the decree was a nullity.

Issue (i): Whether the absence of the Central Government's consent under Section 86 read with Section 87-B of the Code of Civil Procedure rendered the suit and the decree against the firm wholly void or only ineffective against the protected partner.

Analysis: A suit in the firm name under Order 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure is in substance a suit against the partners who compose the firm, but the procedural fiction cannot be extended so far as to defeat a statutory bar applicable to one partner. Where one partner enjoys special protection against being sued without prior consent, the suit cannot validly proceed against that partner, and any decree is ineffective to that extent. At the same time, the defect does not destroy the competence of the suit against the remaining partners or the partnership assets, because the firm may still be treated as a suable entity for the limited purpose of proceeding against those not protected by the bar.

Conclusion: The decree was void only insofar as it purported to bind the specially protected partner, but it remained valid and executable against the other partners and the partnership property.

Issue (ii): Whether an application under Order 21, Rule 50(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure could be resisted by reopening the merits of the underlying claim or by raising the plea that the decree was a nullity.

Analysis: In proceedings under Order 21, Rule 50(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the inquiry is limited. The respondent may question whether he was a partner at the relevant time, may rely on a decree that is a nullity, and may in an appropriate case invoke fraud or collusion, but the execution court cannot permit a fresh trial of the original dispute between the partners or allow defences going to the merits of the underlying liability. On the facts, there was no sufficient allegation of fraud or collusion by the decree-holder, and the decree against the non-protected partners was not a nullity.

Conclusion: The execution application was maintainable, and the appellants could not defeat it by reopening the merits or by relying on defences unavailable in such proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the decree could be executed against the non-protected partners, and the objections raised in execution did not disclose a ground to deny leave under Order 21, Rule 50(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: A suit in the firm name may remain valid against the partners who are not protected by a statutory bar, and in execution under Order 21, Rule 50(2), the judgment-debtor can resist only on limited grounds such as nullity, fraud, collusion, or absence of partnership at the relevant time, not by reopening the merits of the original claim.

---