https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287375 Where prior knowledge of a partner's death or dissolution is not proved, the proviso to Order XXX Rule 3 CPC does not require service of summons on every partner, and the objection to the suit on that ground fails. The Court also held that Order XXI Rule 50 CPC is wide enough to permit execution of a decree against the estate of a deceased partner through his legal representatives, and sub-rule (4) does not exclude the operation of sub-rule (2). The appellant's narrower construction was rejected because it would wrongly shield the deceased partner's estate from liability for the decretal debt. The decree-holder was therefore entitled to proceed in execution against the legal representatives. en-us Fri, 11 Aug 1922 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Apr 2020 11:32:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287375 Where prior knowledge of a partner's death or dissolution is not proved, the proviso to Order XXX Rule 3 CPC does not require service of summons on every partner, and the objection to the suit on that ground fails. The Court also held that Order XXI Rule 50 CPC is wide enough to permit execution of a decree against the estate of a deceased partner through his legal representatives, and sub-rule (4) does not exclude the operation of sub-rule (2). The appellant's narrower construction was rejected because it would wrongly shield the deceased partner's estate from liability for the decretal debt. The decree-holder was therefore entitled to proceed in execution against the legal representatives. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 11 Aug 1922 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287375