JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows:– This is a combined application made on the part of the first defendant prying for two reliefs. By a letter dated 16th March, 1992, a copy of which (itself undated) is annexed at page-41 of the annexures to the application (the date is ascertainable from the next letter), request was made on the part of the Advocates for the first defendant for furnishing of names and place of residence of all the partners of the plaintiff firm. No reply having been received to that letter or the following letter of the 21st March, 1992, it is said on the part of the defendant that upon the provisions enacted in order 30 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure the suit should be stayed. 2. The next point taken in this application is that as per the certified extract given by the Registrar of firms, appearing at page 38 of the annexures to the application the plaintiff firm originally consisted of one Fakir Chand Jhunjhunwala, his minor son Bimal Kumar Jhunjhunwala and another partner Ram Kissen Jhunjhunwala. The case of the first defendant is that Fakir Chand died in 1989, that his minor son Bimal pre-deceased him in 1984 and Ram Kissen is to be presumed as dead because according to the defendant he has not been heard of in the past seven years. 3. In case all the plaintiffs compendiously described by the name of the partnership firm have died and in case further that their interest to sue has not devolved upon their heirs or successors then and in that event the suit terminates without any possibility of revival. If however, the right to sue possessed by the original plaintiffs survives their death and devolves upon their heirs then and in that event a substitution within time would have to be made to prevent abatement of the suit. In case such an application is not made the suit shall abate automatically, and no order in respect of such abatement need be recorded. Even if a suit abates, such abatement can be set aside by way of an application and even if the time prescribed for such application has run out there are provisions for permitting condonation of delay in making of such an application. Even if a suit abates, such abatement can be set aside by way of an application and even if the time prescribed for such application has run out there are provisions for permitting condonation of delay in making of such an application. In this view of the matter and in view of the absence of the partnership deed and the absence of particulars as to the devolution of the interest in the partnership of the aforesaid three persons, it would be inappropriate in my opinion to record the dismissal of the suit by way of abatement at this stage. 4. The provisions of Order 30 Rule 2 are as follows:– "Disclosure of partners’ names–– (1) Where a suit is instituted by partners in the name of their firm, the plaintiffs or their pleader shall, on demanding writing by or on behalf of any defendant, forthwith declare in writing the names and places of residence of all the persons constituting the firm on whose behalf the suit is instituted. (2) Where the plaintiffs or their pleader fail to comply with any demand made under sub-rule (1) all proceedings in the suit may, upon an application for that purpose, be stayed upon such terms as the Court may direct. (3) Where the names of the partners are declared in the manner referred to in sub-rule (1) the suit shall proceed in the same manner, and the same consequences in all respects shall follow, as if they had been named as plaintiffs in the plaint : Provided that all proceedings shall nevertheless continue in the name of the firm, but the name of the partners disclosed in the manner specified in sub-rule (1) shall be entered in the decree". 5. The provision of Order 30 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure is also relevant and is as follows:– "Right of suit on death of partner–– (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 45 of the Indian Contract Act, 1972 (9 of 1872) where two or more persons may sue or be used 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 representative of the deceased as a party to the suit. (2) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall limit or otherwise effect any right which the legal representative of the declared may have–– (a) to apply to be made a party to the suit, or (b) to enforce any claim against the survivor or survivors". 6. The provisions of Order 30 Rule 4 would not help in the case of an allegation made as in the present case that the death not merely of one or two of many partners has occurred, but the death of all partners of the firm recorded in the register has taken place. 7. In so far as Rule 2 is concerned, the language makes it clear that when a demand in writing is made on behalf of the defendant regarding the particulars of the partners of the suing plaintiff firm, such particulars are to be furnished regarding the persons constituting the firm at or around the time of enquiry. It would be inappropriate to construe the rule to read that whenever the enquiry is made the particulars would be furnished only of the persons who constituted the firm at the date of institution of the suit. On the interpretation that the particulars of the partners are to be granted on the date of enquiry it would be possible for the defendant to make such enquiry from time to time. Such repeated enquiry will not necessarily be harassing or fruitless as the constitution of a partnership does change from time to time and enquiries being made about the new constitution might well be relevant and material for the purpose of disposal of the suit itself. 8. In case the particulars are not furnished Sub-Rule 2 of the Order 30 Rule 2 makes it clear that the Court has a judicial discretion in the matter of staying the suit either unconditionally or upon such terms as might appear to it to be just under the circumstances. It might be mentioned that in case enquiries are made repeatedly the Court would naturally refuse to pass any discretionary order if such repeated enquiries appear to be unnecessary or harassing. 9. In the present case I am quite satisfied that the enquiry about the constitution of the firm was made bona fide and that an answer thereto should have been granted expeditiously. 9. In the present case I am quite satisfied that the enquiry about the constitution of the firm was made bona fide and that an answer thereto should have been granted expeditiously. Though the matter was once adjourned at the request of the recorded advocates for the plaintiff yet no instruction have come from their side. Unless the particulars about the firm’s constitution re furnished expeditiously the suit in my opinion should remain permanently stayed as there would be nobody who would be known to the Advocates on Record to the plaintiff to be interested in carrying on the suit and also to have a legal interest in the matter of carrying on of the suit. 10. Under the circumstances the plaintiff firm is directed if it still claims to be in existence through any partners presently entitled to the rights and assets of the said firm to furnish either by themselves or through their present recorded Advocates in this suit, the names and place of residence of all the persons constituting the firm Bansidhar Satyanarayan being the plaintiff, such particulars being given about the present day constitution of the said firm. Though not perfectly worded I would read the query in the letter of 16th March, 1992 to be a query about the present constitution of the firm rather than a query about the constitution of the firm at the time when the suit was instituted. Such as also been the submission of Mr. Shome appearing on behalf of the first defendant. 11. Unless the particulars of the constitution as mentioned above re furnished to the first defendant or her Advocate within a period of a fortnight from date hereof, the suit shall remain permanently stayed and interim orders, if any passed in the suit, shall also remain permanently stayed. In the event the particulars are furnished the persons named as constituting the firm at present shall have the carriage of proceedings and shall be at liberty to bring the suit to a hearing after due compliance of all formalities. 12. The first defendant will be entitled to the costs of this application. The allegations in the petition are not admitted by Mr. Suren Dube who appears for the firm merely stating that the firm has been reconstituted though he is unable today to given any particulars as to such reconstitution. 12. The first defendant will be entitled to the costs of this application. The allegations in the petition are not admitted by Mr. Suren Dube who appears for the firm merely stating that the firm has been reconstituted though he is unable today to given any particulars as to such reconstitution. All parties to ct on a signed copy of this Dictated Order upon usual undertaking.