' Respondent No. 1 had been served and notice under registered P. C. Was issued for 22-11-1980.
Respondent No, 2 is the Managing Partner of the firm Messrs Lyallpur Bus Service respondent No. 1 and is represented. Respondent No. 1 shall be deemed to be represented through respondent No, 2.
2. The petitioner-Bank filed a suit for the recovery of Rs, 3,13,000 against Messrs Lyallpur Bus Service in January, 1973. The suit filed by the petitioner was based on a mortgage and this fact was mentioned in paragraph 5 of the plaint. In the prayer also it was mentioned that the amount be recovered from the sale of the mortgaged property. The suit against Messrs Lyallpur Bus Service had been filed through Sardar Muhammad Salik as its Managing Partner. The petitioner filed two applications; one under Order I, rule 10, C. P. C. Praying for impleading the other 13 partners of the respondent-firm personally as defendants and the other was filed under Order VI, rule 17, C. P. C. For the amendment of the plaint so as to incorporate the para. In which the particulars of the mortgage be given and a suitable amendment in the prayer be also made. The learned Civil Judge, Faisalabad rejected both the applications vide order dated 17-7-1973.
3. In respect of the application for impleading the other partners of the firm the trial Court observed that if the partners of the firm were impleaded on the date of the making of the application the suit filed against them would be barred by time. The application was made on 19-6-1973 while the cause of action has been shown to have accrued on 5-3-1970. Under Order XXX, rule 1, C. P. C. a suit against the firm is legally competent and anything done on behalf of the firm shall bind its partners under the provisions of Partnership Act. Rule 1 of Order XXX, C. P. C. Provides that any two or more persons claiming or being liable as partners and carrying on business in Pakistan may sue or be sued in the name of the firm (if any) of which such persons were partners at the time of the accruing of the cause of action, and any party to a suit may in such case apply to the Court for a statement of the names and addresses of the persons who were, at the time of the accruing of the cause of action, partners in such firm, to be furnished and verified in such manner as the Court may direct. In view of this clear provision no, application could be made for the impleading the other partners also defendants.
4. As regards the second application there was no reason to disallow the same. The proposed amendment would neither introduce a new cause of action nor change the complexion of the suit.
All the conditions required under Order VI, rule 17, C. P. C. For the amendment of the plaint were attracted. The petitioner wanted to add the particulars of the mortgaged property and also to amend the prayer so as to bring the same in conformity with the provisions of Order XXXIV, and Form No, 45 of Appendix A of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. In view of the above discussion the revision is partly accepted. The application made by the petitioner under Order VI, rule 17, C. P. C. For the amendment of the plaint on 19-64973 is allowed subject to the petitioner paying Rs, 300 as cost before filing the amended plaint. However, there will be no order as to costs in the revision.