JUDGMENT - Masodkar B.A.-After hearing the learned counsel for both parties, it appears to us that the appeal as filed is incompetent in view of the provisions of Order XXX, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. 2. The initial suit was filed by the present appellant against the partnership and the partnership was impleaded as defendant No. 1, while the partners were shown as defendants Nos. 2 to 5. As the issues indicate, there were different defences taken by different defendants and all the issues were tried and the trial Court decreed the claim against the firm and defendant No.2 and defendant No.4. The suit was however, dismissed against defendants Nos. 3 and 5. 3. In the appeal against that dismissal, the partnership has not been impleaded nor has it been joined nor have the other defendants been joined or impleaded. 4. It is an admitted position that the cause of action was for the recovery of the partnership debt and the liability of each of the defendants arose because of the partnership debt. The basic principle operative in the matters of partnership is that a firm or partnership is not a legal person but is a compendious name for the partners who become related because of the agreement of partnership. When a suit is brought against a firm, the legal effect is that it is brought, though in the name of the firm, against all those who are the partners. (See P11rvshottam Co. v. Mani/al Sons1). A decree made in such a suit in law is against all the partners. Therefore, the position in law with regard to suits against partnerships for recovery of debts due does not admit any doubt. 5. The provisions of Order XXX, Rule I as well as the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure go to .indicate that law contemplates, in such matters, suits only against partnership firms. The other Rules of Order XXX further indicate that a person summoned as partner call prove that he is not a partner and never was; but if he raises that defence, he cannot defend the firm. Persons who admit. that they are partners may defend the firm, take as many pleas as they like but cannot enter upon issues between themselves. When the decree is passed, it is against the firm. Persons who admit. that they are partners may defend the firm, take as many pleas as they like but cannot enter upon issues between themselves. When the decree is passed, it is against the firm. r Such a decree is capable of being executed against the property of the partnership and also against two classes of persons individually, being persons who appeared in answer to summons served on them as partners and either admitted that they were partners or were found to be so and persons who were summoned as partners but stayed away. (See Gambhir Mal v. J. K. Jute MlIls2). The decree made in such suit clearly goes to involve the CR. D. T1~lpuleJ.)