JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Applicant Ratanlal, moved application before the trial court with the prayer that he should be impleaded as a party. Suit was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant M/s Ramgopal Ratanlal and M/s Sagar Enterprises for the ejectment. It was submitted that shop was let out to M/s Ram Gopal Ratanlal, by the plaintiff. Suit for ejectment was filed on various grounds and it is not necessary to refer them in this revision petition. 3. Mr. C.K. Garg, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner in this court has argued that his client is a necessary party and to protect the interest of the film M/s Ramgopal Ratanlal, he should be allowed to be added as a party. He further submits that Ramgopal, the other partner has been impleaded as a partner (sic party) and there is a dispute pending about the partnership firm and the suit is pending. It was also submitted that for the last number of years, shop is not running and it is locked and there is a report of the Commissioner, about this fact. He further submits in case of collusion between plaintiff and Ramgopal, his client Ratnal will suffer. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Lodha submits that the applicant is not a necessary party and no party can be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. 5. Mr. Garg, submitts that the plaintiff has also agreed now that the applicant should be impleaded as a party. On this point, Mr. Lodha, submits that the smell of collusion may be there. In the trial court the plaintiff has opposed the addition of the party. 6. Mr. Garg cited before me the case of Malabar Fisheries Co. v. the Commissioner of Income Tax, AIR 1980 S.C. 176 and submitted that the partnership firm under the Partnership Act, is not a distinct legal entity. Apart from the firm as such has no separate rights of its own, in the partner-ship assets and when one talks of the firms property or firms assets, it means the property or assets of partners in which they have a joint and common interest. The case cited by Mr. Garg, relates to the In Income-Tax provisions. Under Section 14 of the Partnership Act, even the immovable property may be thrown in the partnership firm by the partners. 7. Mr. The case cited by Mr. Garg, relates to the In Income-Tax provisions. Under Section 14 of the Partnership Act, even the immovable property may be thrown in the partnership firm by the partners. 7. Mr. Lodha also cited before me the case of Munshi Ram v. Vimal Kumar, 1985 (1) Rent Law Reporter 505 , While dealing with the provisions of East Punjab Restriction Act. 1949. Punjab & Haryana High Court, has held that in a suit for eviction of tenant from shop the partner as tenant has no locus standi to be impleaded as a party in the proceedings of the ejectment against the tenant. The case cited by Mr. Lodha does not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the instant case the tenant is the firm and it is not necessary that any partner should be impleaded as a patty to the suit under the provisions of O.30 Rule 1 CPC. The law is well settled on this point and the partnership is not a legal distinct entity. At the same time. in the matter of filing a suit by the firm or against the firm the procedure has been laid down under Rule I of O. 30 CPC. For the purpose of filing the suit only the firm can be considered to a limited extent as a legal pasty may not be as a legal distinct entity and the suit can be instituted by or against the firm by impleading firm as a party. In the instant case, the suit has been instituted against the firm and not against any of the partners. In the plaint, it has been specifically mentioned that M/s Ramgopal Ratanlal is the partnership and suit has been filed only against firm through one of its partners. It has come in pleadings M/s Ramgopal Ratanlal, is a partnership firm. The court below has given a finding that okn xzLr QeZ jkexksiky jruyky dh fdjk,nkjh esa gS tks Hkkxhnkjh gSA "There is a report of the Commissioner, that in between Ramgopal and the present petitioner Ratanlal, litigation is going on and the firm is not running for the last 5 years or so. 8. Mr. Lodha, cited before me the case of Parbhati v. Manasi Devi, AIR 1977 Orissa 138 . He further submits that ordinarily. 8. Mr. Lodha, cited before me the case of Parbhati v. Manasi Devi, AIR 1977 Orissa 138 . He further submits that ordinarily. the plaintiff who comes to the court is the dominoes lenities and he is the best judge of his own interest. 9. It is true, that the doctrine and principle dominoes leities apply ordinarily. The word "Ordinarily" has been used by his lordship of the Orissa High Court to explain that there can be exception to this rules, and when the court finds that in the interest of justice if any party should be added, the court can direct the plaintiff to aid and the court is not powerless to do so. 10. I have heard the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 11. Order 30 Rule 1, provides that any two or more persons claiming or being liable as partners and carrying on business in India can be sued in the name of the firm of which such persons were partner at the time of the accruing of the cause of actioned any party to a suit may in such case apply to the court for a statement of the names and address of the person who were, at the time of the accruing of the cause of action, partners in such firms, to be furnished and verified in such manner as the court may direct. It is not necessary to disclose the names of the partners at the time of filing suit. Rule 2 provides about the disclosures. Rule 3 of O.30 Civil Procedure Code provides that the summons should be served upon any one and more of the partners or at the principal place at which the partnership business is carried on within (India) upon any person having at the time of service, the control on the management of the partnership business. Thus, Rule 3 provides that even a summons may be served on a person who is having a control over the management of the business and it is not necessary that he should be a partner. For this reason I am of the view that by only mentioning that the summons should be served through Ram Gopal son of Rameshwar, it cannot be said that Ram Gopal has been impleaded as a party and his name is only referred for the purpose of service of the summons. For this reason I am of the view that by only mentioning that the summons should be served through Ram Gopal son of Rameshwar, it cannot be said that Ram Gopal has been impleaded as a party and his name is only referred for the purpose of service of the summons. Otherwise, he will be defendant No. 2 and his name will be shown as defendant partner of the firm. Now in the instant case, plaintiff admits that Ramgopal Ratanlal, are the partners of the firm defendant No. 1. This fact has been admitted even in the trial court. None of the partners have been impleaded as party. In case of the association of persons or otherwise the persons who are the members will have to be in pleaded as a party unless association is a legal distinct entity. Exception to the general rule which is provided is under R.1 of O.30 of the Civil Procedure Code will not be available to them. Rule 1 is an exception to the General Rule. In the instant case. it has come on record that there is a dispute about the continuation of partnership, the rights of the partnership firm about the dissolution of the firm and there may be dispute between Ramgopal and Ratanlal. This dispute cannot be decided in this suit and no party can be allowed to raise any question relating to their interse dispute in this suit. It is necessary to protest the interest of the firm in which the partners have a joint interest of and particularly. when the partners are litigating against each other and they are litigating and any of the persons whose welfare in the firm, should be allowed to be impleaded as a party, partners will have the right to defend only and not to air (raise) their interest (sic internal) disputes. 12. With this direction, I allow the revision petition and set aside the order of the trial court and direct that Ratanlal, should be impleaded as party. However, it is clarified that Ratanlal and any of the party will not raise interest (sic internal) dispute and they will safeguard the interest of the firm. Mr Lodha, submits that Ramgopal. should also be allowed to be impleaded as a party. However, it is clarified that Ratanlal and any of the party will not raise interest (sic internal) dispute and they will safeguard the interest of the firm. Mr Lodha, submits that Ramgopal. should also be allowed to be impleaded as a party. His oral request is accepted and he should be allowed to be impleaded as an additional party in the capacity of his being the partner of the firm. 13. In the result, the revision petition is disposed of accordingly. 14. No order as to costs.Revision disposed of accordingly *******