JUDGMENT 1. - The revision petition is directed against the order dated 31.8.1987 of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1 Alwar and another order also passed on that very day by which the plaintiffs' suit was abated and dismissed as it remained no more maintainable in view of the death of a partner of the registered firm. 2. Very few facts need be narrated for the disposal of the revision petition : M/s Chunnilal Devkinandan along with Devkinandan and Smt. Nirmala instituted a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 29,450/- against defendant Nathu Ram which came for trial before the learned Additional District Judge No. 1 Alwar. The suit was based on a bond executed by the defendant in favour of M/s Chunnilal Devkinandan on 2.2.1981 for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- found due against him on taking accounts. M/s. Chunnilal Devkinandan was described to be a partnership firm duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act 1932. Devkinandan and Smt. Nirmla Devi were stated to be partners of the aforesaid firm M/s. Chunnilal Devkinandan. The suit was contested by the defendant. During pendency of the trial of the suit the death of Devkinandan took place on 25.9.1984. On 15.12.1984 an application was moved stating therein that firm Chunnilal Devkinandan was re-constituted on account of the death of Devkinandan and that Brij Bhushan Brijendra Kumar and Jitendra Kumar were admitted as new partners. It was prayed in the application that Brij Bhushan Brijendra Kumar and Jitendra Kumar be substituted as plaintiffs in place of deceased plaintiff Devkinandan. This application was opposed by the defendant. Learned Additional District Judge by his impugned order held that since the names of Brij Bhushan Brijendra Kumar and Jitendra Kumar were also not entered in the register kept in the office of the Registrar of Firms and were not shown as partners therein they could not be impleaded or substituted as plaintiffs in place of the deceased- plaintiff Devkinandan. He further held that since no legal representative of deceased-plaintiff Devkinandan was brought on record the suit abated. The suit was eventually dismissed by another order passed on the same day in the order sheet. Aggrieved against the said orders the plaintiffs have come up in revision petition. 3. Despite service of notice the defendant/non petitioner did not put appearance. As such the revision was heard ex-parte in his absence. 4. The suit was eventually dismissed by another order passed on the same day in the order sheet. Aggrieved against the said orders the plaintiffs have come up in revision petition. 3. Despite service of notice the defendant/non petitioner did not put appearance. As such the revision was heard ex-parte in his absence. 4. I have heard Mr. Lodha learned counsel for petitioner and perused the impugned orders. 5. It was contended by Mr. Lodha that the entire approach of the court below was erroneous. The suit did not abate on account of the death of Devkinandan. The suit was filed by the duly registered partnership firm in accordance with the provisions of Order 30 Rule 1 CPC. When the suit is filed by a registered partnership firm it does not stand abated on account of death of one of the partners. The provisions of Section 45 of the Indian Contract Act 1972 (sic 1872) have no applicability in such a case. Rule 4 of Order 30 CPC specifically lays down that if a suit is brought in the name of a firm and if one of the partners dies during the pendency of the suit it is not necessary to join the legal representatives of the deceased partner and to bring them on record in his place. Reliance in support of the contention was placed on (1) Shambhu Dayal Vs. M/s Chunnilal Devkinandan ( AIR 1980 Raj. 69 ) decided by a learned single Judge of this court. 6. I have carefully gone through the above case and have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission made by Mr. Lodha and find that there is considerable force in it. Order 30 lays down the institution of suits by or against the firms etc. Rule 1 lays down that if two or more persons claiming or being liable as partners carry on business they may sue or be sued in the name of the firm. A firm is an abbreviated name for the partners. Rule I permits that a partnership firm can institute a suit and the pleadings may be signed or verified or certified by any one of the partners. Rule 4 lays down that the provisions of Section 45 of the Indian Contract Act where a promise is made to two or more persons are not applicable where a firm sues or sued. Rule 4 lays down that the provisions of Section 45 of the Indian Contract Act where a promise is made to two or more persons are not applicable where a firm sues or sued. It would be useful to read rule 4 which runs as under:- "R. 4. Right of suit on death of partner- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 45 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 where two or more persons may sue or be sued in the name of a firm under the foregoing provisions and any of such persons dies. whether before the institution or during the pendency of any suit it shall not be necessary to join the legal representatives of the deceased as a party to the suit. (2) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall limit or otherwise affect any right which the legal representative of the deceased may have (a) to apply to be made a party to the suit or (b) to enforce any claim against the survivor/survivors." 7. A bare reading of rule 4 makes it amply clear that where a suit is filed in the name of a firm the death of one of its partners has no consequence and it is not at all necessary to join the legal representatives of the deceased partner in his place. Of course it is open to the legal representatives of the deceased partner and to be impleaded as a partner and to he substituted in place of the deceased partner. However. the provisions of Section 45 of the Indian Contract Act have been specifically excluded from operation in a case where a suit is filed by a firm. The suit does not stand abated only on account of death of a partner of a partnership firm. Rule 4 allows the continuation of a suit even on the death of a partner. The suit in no case abates on account of death of a partner. 8. It is unfortunate that Rule 47 was not brought to the notice of the court below by the plaintiffs. I am quite conscious that the suit was filed by the duly registered partnership firm "M/s. Chunnilal Devkinandan" and two of its partners namely Devkinandan and Smt. Narmala Devi. The two partners were thus also there in the array of the plaintiffs. I am quite conscious that the suit was filed by the duly registered partnership firm "M/s. Chunnilal Devkinandan" and two of its partners namely Devkinandan and Smt. Narmala Devi. The two partners were thus also there in the array of the plaintiffs. The question arise as to whether the provisions of rule 4 will apply where the suit is instituted by the firm as well as the partners. Even in such a case, the suit essentially remains to have been brought under the provisions of Rule 1 Order 20 by a partnership fir-n. The additions of partners in the plaint in addition to the partnership firm is not an adverse consequence. It will mean that the partners have been added in addition to the partnership firm in the plaint as abundant caution. The addition of partners may be ignored as a mere surplusage. What is essential is that the suit should have been brought in accordance with the provisions of Rule 1. If it has been so brought then the provisions of rule 4 will be automatically attracted. In such a case the death of a partner who has been impleaded as a plaintiff has no material consequence. The suit will proceed further as provided in Rule 4 of Order 30 CPC. 9. Learned Addl. District Judge put reliance in support of his view on (2) M/s. Surana & Company Vs Commissioner of Income-tax (1985 RLW 125) . He has mis-read the judgment and wrongly applied it in the instant case. It was a ease under the Income-tax Act 1961. The question related to the dissolution of the firm on the death of a partner. Rule 4 of Order 30 carves out an exception and allows continuation of the suit. The dissolution or no dissolution has effect on Rule 4 and the continuation of suit thereunder. 10. For the reasons aforesaid the revision petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 31-8-1987 are set-aside. The court below is directed to proceed with the trial of the suit. No order as to costs. Revision allowed. *******