1. The Subordinate Judge says that the plaintiff has got “only sub-partners” The plaintiff in his evidence says that they are his “lopayakari sharers.” This may mean only that he has got assistants who get a share of the profits, or it may mean that they are dormant partners who can make claims against or under him.
2. As regards dormant partners, Lindley says at page 333 of his book: “But a dormant partner never need be joined as a co-plaintiff in an action on a contract entered into with the firm or with one of its members.”
3. [See also Kishen Parshad v. Har Narain Singh(1).
4. I think, therefore, that the non-joinder of the plaintiff's immersed (which seems to be the literal meaning of lopayakari) sharers is not fatal to the suit.
5. The contention that Exhibit A is a negotiable instrument and hence the 1st defendant is not bound by the 2nd defendant's signature therein, was not set us in lower Court nor is it set out in the grounds of revision and I refuse to consider it. The last contention that the Subordinate Judge's refusal to grant an adjournment, was wrong, is not sought to be supported by even a printing of the order, of the petition for adjournment and of those portions of the B Diary which would show the numerous adjournments granted in this Small Cause Suit, which seems to have been filed in June 1912 though disposed of only in March 1914.
6. I dismiss the Civil Revision Petition with costs.
S.N/R.K
7. Petition dismissed.