Allowed eviction where alive partners and deceased partner's legal representatives were served. Distinguished AIR 1984 case noting misdescription was curable here.
Letters Patent Appeal dismissed; eviction order upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
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
the learned counsel for respondent no.1.
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.
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.
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
1 issue framed by the court
Whether misdescription of respondents renders an eviction order illegal when alive partners were served and legal representatives of deceased partners contested.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s. Chhotelal Pyarelal, the partnership firm and others v. ShikharchandDistinguished¶17
M/s. Chhotelal Pyarelal, the partnership firm and others .vrs. Shikharchand, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1570 · Who else cites this
Smt. Kiranrani wd/o Suryakantlal Chaurasia and others
The Chief Manager, Bank of India, Nagpur and another
K.J. ROHEE
PRASANNA B. VARALE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
