S. D. PANDIT ( 1 ) THESE three applications are filed by defandants 3,6 and5 respectively under Rule 3 (5) of Order XXXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure. These three applications are raising common question of law as to whether the applicants are to be granted leave to defend the suit and. hence. they are being disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFF is a nationalised bank, viz. Canara Bank. Lakshmi Commercial Bank Limited was amalgamated with the plaintiff Canara Bank on 23,8. 1985 and all the title and interest vesting in the said Lakshmi Commercial Bank have devolved on the plaintiff Defendant No. 1 is a private limited company, whereas defendant No. 2 is a partnership firm and defendants 3 to 6 are the partners of defendant No. 2. ( 3 ) PLAINTIFF has filed the present suit to get a decree for Rs. 4,01,240. 00 It is the allegation of the plaintiff bank that defendant No. 1 had certain dealings and transactions with the then Lakshmi Commercial Bank Limited and defendant No. 2 partnership firm had jointly executed a pronote on 8. 3. 1982 towards the liability of defendant No. 1 on account of the said loan transaction. Therefore, plaintiff has filed the present suit on the strength of the said promissory note under the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 4 ) APPLICANT/defendants 3, 6 and 5 are seeking leave to defend the suit. They contend that defendant No. 4 who signed on behalf of the partnership of defendant No. 2 the said promissory note had no authority to sign the same and, consequently, neither the defendant No. 2 nor its partners/present applicants would be liable to pay the claim of the plaintiff. It is their further contention that the plaintiff has not given the details as to how the plaintiff is claiming the amount of Rs. 4,01,240. 00 They further contend that the alleged pronote is dated 8. 3. 1982 and the suit which is filed on 2. 1. 1986 is barred by the Law of Limitation. Therefore, in view of these contentions by them and also the other contentions the applicants be permitted to defend the suit. 4,01,240. 00 They further contend that the alleged pronote is dated 8. 3. 1982 and the suit which is filed on 2. 1. 1986 is barred by the Law of Limitation. Therefore, in view of these contentions by them and also the other contentions the applicants be permitted to defend the suit. ( 5 ) IN view of the submissions made before the only point which arises for my consideration is as to whether the applicants in these three applications are to be granted the leave to defend the suit. My finding on the same is in the affirmative for the reasons hereinafter stated. ( 6 ) IT is the contention ofthe applicants that defendant No 2 is a partnership firm, of which they are partners, and it is not at all liable to pay the suit claim. Admittedly, the loan was taken by the private limited company. viz. defendant No. 1 and there is no transaction between the plaintiff s predecessor in title, viz. Lakshmi Commercial Bank Limited with the defendant No. 2 partnership firm. No doubt the promissory note dated 8. 3. 1982 is bearing the signature of partner of defendant No. 2 partnership firm alongwith the signature of defendant No. 1 s Managing Director, but if the provisions of Section 18 of the Indian Partnership Act are considered then it would be quite clear that a partner of the partnership firm has got implied authority to do any act concerning the business ofthe partnership firm. Therefore, there is a question to be considered on merits after the detailed pleadings are made by the defendants as to whether the partner of defendant No. 2 partnership firm who has signed on behalf of the partnership firm had the authority to sign the said promissory note to pay the debt payable by defendant No. 1. Therefore- the contention raised by the applicants that the partnership firm is not liable to pay the said loan is a debatable question and for that purpose defendants must be granted leave to have on record the detailed pleadings of defendants 3, 6 and 5. ( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY, the promissory note is dated 8. 3. 1982. The suit is filed on 2. 1. 1986. ( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY, the promissory note is dated 8. 3. 1982. The suit is filed on 2. 1. 1986. Defendant No. 2 partnership firm has not executed any document in favour of the plaintiff bank as per the documents, as could be seen from the documents filed by the plaintiff after the said date of 8. 3. 1982. Therefore, in these circumstances, the contention raised by the applicants that the plaintiff s claim is barred by the law of limitation will have to be considered and decided on merits. ( 8 ) IN view of the above discussion, it could not be said that the contentions raised by the applicants are either vexatious or false. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the defendants are reasing debatable questions which would have to be gone into on merits after giving opportunity to the defendants to file detailed pleadings and also opportunity to both the sides to lead evidence in support of their contentions. I thus, hold that leave to defend the suit mustbe granted in all these three applications I therefore. pass the following order "defendants 3. 5 and 6 are granted leave to defend the suit Let these defendants file their written statement within four weeks from today Replication. If any to be filed within three wecks thereafter Matter to go before the Joint Registrar for admission/denial of documents on 14. 2. 1996 On or before that date all the parties at liberty to file additional documents Matter be listed before the Court on 23. 2. 1996 it settlement of issues. "