objections to the application. The first objection is on the ground of misjoinder of parties. The defendants assert that neither the second nor third defendant are partners of the first defendant. Therefore, it is contended that a joint and several decree cannot be prayed for against the second and third defendants. The second objection is on the ground that there is no privity of contract between the first defendant and the plaintiff. All the invoices on which the suit claim is founded were issued by Kemiter srl. According to the defendants, the plaintiff has failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish that it is entitled to step into the shoes of Kemiter srl and maintain the suit. The third objection is on the ground of limitation. The defendants contend that the plea of limitation was expressly raised in paragraph 10 of the written statement filed by defendants 1, 4 and 5. With specific reference to paragraph 10 of such written statement, the defendants contend that it was stated therein that several of the invoices are barred by limitation. In addition, the plaintiff's assertion that there was a running account between the parties was expressly denied. In light of these objections, the defendants contend that the plaintiff has failed to establish the primary requirement under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC of establishing a strong prima facie case. Consequently, it is contended that the present application is a roving
