CRP/6735/2026 of Gandhimathi Vs Shri Vijayaram Finance on 26 October 2026

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Executing Court allowing the application filed by the first respondent / decree holder seeking to amend the cause title in the Execution petition.

( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 07:33:17 pm )

CRP No. 6735 of 2026

2. The first respondent firm instituted a suit for recovery of money against the petitioner and obtained a decree in O.S.No.167 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Attur. In the suit, the plaintiff firm, namely Shri Vijayaram Finance, Attur, was represented by its Managing Partner, S.Arunachalam. Later, the Execution Petition was filed by the plaintiff firm. However, in the cause title given in the Execution Petition, the firm was described as Shri Vijayaram Finance, represented by its “representative” S.Arunachalam instead of “Managing Partner”. Subsequently, said S.Arunachalam died. Hence, an amendment application has been filed seeking amendment in the cause title in the Execution Petition to substitute the word “representative” with the word “partner” to include the name of one of the surviving partners, Kannan. The said amendment application has been allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner / Judgment Debtor has come before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have not produced any documentary evidence to establish above mentioned Kannan is the partner of the plaintiff firm. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Execution Petition was filed against three Judgment Debtors. The present amendment application has been filed only against the petitioner herein, who is one of the Judgment Debtors.

( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 07:33:17 pm )

CRP No. 6735 of 2026

4. It is settled law that a firm can sue or be sued in its own name and it need not be represented by its partners. The only condition is that the pleadings shall be verified by the partners. In the case on hand, the plaintiff firm was originally represented by its deceased Managing Partner S.Arunachalam. He filed the Execution Application in the name of the firm. In the cause title, the firm was described as represented by representative S.Arunachalam instead of Managing Partner S.Arunachalam. Subsequently, above said S.Arunachalam died. Therefore, the surviving partner wants to continue with the Execution Petition. Anyone of the existing partner can represent the firm and verify pleadings on it’s behalf. The only grievance of the petitioner is no materials have been placed before the Executing Court to establish Kannan is partner of the plaintiff firm. Therefore, the respondents are directed to produce documentary evidence before the Executing Court to establish that Kannan is an existing partner of the plaintiff partnership firm namely, Shri Vijayaram Finance, Attur. On production of the documentary evidence to establish Kannan is the partner of the firm, the first respondent firm is entitled to proceed with the execution proceedings.

5. It is seen from the Execution petition, the property belongs to one of the Judgment Debtors namely the petitioner was sought to be attached. The decree has been passed against three persons, including the petitioner. As per the plaint averments, all the judgment Debtors jointly borrowed a sum from the plaintiff

( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 07:33:17 pm )

CRP No. 6735 of 2026

firm and failed to repay the same. Therefore, the liability of all the Judgment Debtors are joint. The liability of each of the Judgment Debtor is coextensive with that of other. Therefore, the Decree Holder is entitled to maintain Execution Petition against any one of the Judgment Debtors. The immovable properties of the petitioner herein is sought to be attached by the Decree Holder. Merely because the names of other Judgment Debtors are not mentioned in the amendment application, it will not cause any prejudice to the petitioner whose liability is coextensive with that of the other Judgment Debtors. Therefore, the second submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be entertained by this Court.

6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed with a clarification the first respondent / Decree Holder shall produce materials before the Executing Court to prove above mentioned Kannan is the existing partner of the plaintiff firm. On production of the material, the 1st respondent is entitled to proceed with the Execution Petition. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 26-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No EP

( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 07:33:17 pm )

CRP No. 6735 of 2026

To:- The Subordinate Court, Attur.

( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 07:33:17 pm )

CRP No. 6735 of 2026

S.SOUNTHAR, J. EP CRP No. 6735 of 2026 C.M.P.No.29003 of 2026 26-10-2026

( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 07:33:17 pm )