https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272852 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. en-us Fri, 19 Mar 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 May 2018 15:14:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272852 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 19 Mar 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272852