ORDER:-This is a petition to revise the order of the learned Third Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, dated 26th July, 1977, in E.P.No. 3 of 1977 in O.S. No. 394 of 1975 on his file. Admittedly, the petitioner, who was the plaintiff and decree-holder, obtained a decree only against the firm. Subsequently, he filed an execution petition purporting to be under Order 21, rules 37 and 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for executing the decree against the respondents 2 and 3, who according to the petitioner, were the partners of the firm. The Court below dismissed the petition holding that when the respondents 2 and 3 had not been impleaded as parties to the suit or no summons had been served on them, the executing Court cannot execute the decree against them. It is to revise this order the present civil revision petition has been filed. 2. I am of the opinion that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge is correct, Order 21, rule 50, in sub-rule (i) thereof, states as follows: “1. Where a decree has been passed against a firm, execution may be granted: (a) against any property of the partnership; (b) against any person who has appeared in his own name under rule 6 or rule 7 of Order 30 or who has been admitted on the pleadings that he is, or who has been adjudged to be, a partner ; (c) against any person who has been individually served as a partner with a summons and has failed to appear;” In sub-rule (2) of rule 50, Order 21, Civil Procedure Code, it is stated: “(2) Where the decree-holder claims to be entitled to cause the decree to be executed against any person other than such a person as is referred to in sub-rule (1), clauses (b) and (c) as being a partner in the firm, he may apply to the Court which passed the decree for leave, and where the liability is not disputed, such Court may grant such leave, or, where such liability is disputed may order that the liability of such person be tried and determined in any manner in which any issue in a suit may be tried and determined.” Thus, there is a clear difference between the partners being personally parties to the decree and they being not parties to the decree. In fact, clauses (4) and (c) of sub-rule (1) of rule 50, Order 21, Civil Procedure Code, will clearly show that the partners should have appeared in their own name under rule 6 or 7 of Order 30, Civil Procedure Code or should have been admitted on the pleadings that they are, or have been adjudged to be, partners, or summons in the suit should have been individually served on them and they must have failed to appear. Only in such cases, the decree can be executed against the partners. In all other cases, sub-rule (2) of rule 50, Order 21, Civil Procedure Code, applies, which enables the Court which passed the decree to grant leave. In this particular case, the respondents, 2 and 3 have not appeared in their own name under rule 6 or rule 7 of Order 30, Civil Procedure Code. They have not been admitted on the pleadings that they were, or were adjudged to be, partners, and no summons in the suit had been served on them individually. In those circumstances, neither clause (b) nor clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 30, Order 21, Civil Procedure Code, will apply, and therefore, the learned Judge was right in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner herein. 3. Consequently, the civil revision petition is dismissed.