In In re Malabar Forests &i Rubber Oo.(1 ), Mirza, J., held that where a decree has once been passed against a firm, an individual partner who was not su'llmoned persona.Uy, may be summoned in the execution proceedings, and can contend that he wail not a partner but cannot be allowed to challenge the authority of the other partner or partners t.o enter the transaction in dispute. In Bhagwan v. Hiraji('), !'atkar and Murphy, JJ., took a different view. In that case; a plea that the partners were not authorised tO refer a dispute to arbitration was allowed to be raised. Reliance was placed upon the fourth sub-rule of O. 21, r. 50. In O<YVerji Varjang v. Oooverbai Nagsey (•), the judgment of Wadia, J., from which an appeal was ta.ken to the Divisional Bench is printed, In that judgment, Wadia, J., held that under 0. 21, r. 50(2), the person summoned to show cause may not onl_v prove that he was not a partner bqt take other defences appropriate to his own liability. The learned Judge apparently differed from Mirza, J., and preferred the view in Bhagwan v. Hiraji('), and pointl!d out that the ,-iew was accepted in ToTn.ram Natlimull v. Mahomed Valli Patel(') and Ohhtlt-Oo Lal M isser &i Oo. v. N arainclas Baijnath Prasad ('). In the last mentioned caae., two defences \1) A-1.R. 1932 Bom.334. (2) 1.1.R. 1932 Bom. 516. (S) A•l.R. I l40 Bom.330. (4) I LR. [1939] 2 Cal. 312. (5) (1928) 1.L.R. '6 Cal. 70(,
