ORDER 1. This revision arises out of the order dated 21.7.94 passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Durg in Civil Suit No. 13-B of 1994, rejecting the application filed by the applicants/defendant Nos. 7 and 8 under Order 3D, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Facts relevant for the disposal of this revision are that the non-applicant Nos. 3 to 7, namely, Rqfique, Pramod Singh, Mukund Madhav, Pramod Kumar Saboo and Deoki Nandan Khandelwal formed a partnership to carry on a business of Steel Rolling Mill by and under the name of Mis. Pooja Steel Re-Rollers and Fabircators. A deed of partnership was executed by these five partners on 13.2.1987 and the partnership was duly registered with the Registrar of Firms as per the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act. 3. On 22.10.1988 the partners obtained various types of loan facility, such as, term loan, working capital etc. from the non-applicant No.1/plaintiff for carrying on the partnership business. The partners also gave declaration on the same day to the Bank declaring themselves to be the partners of the said firm. The partners, while enjoying the loan facility granted by the non-applicant/Bank, a deed of retirement was executed on 30.4.1991 and in terms of the retirement deed, three partners, namely, Pramod Singh (non-applicant No.4), D.N. Dhandelwal (non-applicant No.7) and Pramod Kumar (non-applicant No.6) retired from the partnership and the entire assets and liabiliyt of the firm were taken over by non-applicant No.3 and non-applicant No.5. 4. Consequent upon the retirement deed, a new partnership deed was executed on that very day i.e. on 30.4.1991 between the non-applicant No.3 and non-applicant No.5, on the one hand, and applicant No. 1 and applicant No.2, on the other. 5. On 4.12.1992 the non-applicant/Bank filed Civil Suit No. 17-B/92 (re-numbered as 13-B/94) against the applicants and non-applicant Nos. 2 to 7 for recovery of Rs. 32,57,393.61. It was inter alia alleged in the plaint that non-applicant Nos. 3 to 6 being partners of the firm had taken loan from the Bank and had executed various documents in lieu of/and in satisfaction of security for the loan. The applicants were, however, arrayed as defendants, being the new partner of the firm. 32,57,393.61. It was inter alia alleged in the plaint that non-applicant Nos. 3 to 6 being partners of the firm had taken loan from the Bank and had executed various documents in lieu of/and in satisfaction of security for the loan. The applicants were, however, arrayed as defendants, being the new partner of the firm. The applicants, on being served with the summons of the suit, filed an application under Order 30, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that they were neither necessary nor proper party to the suit, as they were admittedly not partners of the said firm at the material time. The applicants, however, admitted that they became partners only in the year 1991, whereas the loan was taken on 22.10.1988. The applicants were then neither partners, nor had they signed any documents as partners, so as to saddle them with any liability arising out of the alleged loan transaction, which is now being enforced against them. The applicants further alleged that only those partners, who had given declaration of their status as partners and had taken loan representing the firm as partner, as on 22.10.1988, will alOJ1e be responsible for the alleged loan. The applicants, therefore, prayed for deletion of their names from the suit. 6. The non-applicant No. l/plaintiff in its reply made a reference to one internal agreement said to be entered into inter se defendants on 30.4.1991. It was alleged that by this agreement the applicants have acknowledged the liability of the Bank and hence they were necessary parties. 7. The learned trial Court ,after hearing ,the parties dismissed the application holding that the applicants were liable for the debt. 8. Shri Ahbay Sapre, learned counsel for the applicants, has contended that the learned trial Court has not considered the case in its proper legal perspective and has wrongly rejected the application of the applicants. The impugned order suffers fromjurisdictionaVerror on its face, therefore, it cannot be sustained. 9. Shri A.K. Khaskalam, learned counsel for the non-applicant/Bank, has contended that while dealing with or deciding the matter under Order 30, rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the question of rights and liabilities are not to be dealt with or decided. The rights and liabilities are to be decided after trial on merits. 9. Shri A.K. Khaskalam, learned counsel for the non-applicant/Bank, has contended that while dealing with or deciding the matter under Order 30, rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the question of rights and liabilities are not to be dealt with or decided. The rights and liabilities are to be decided after trial on merits. The plaintiff/Bank in the plaint has clearly stated that the original partners of the firm have illegally parted with possession and management of the business of the firm in favour of the applicants and there was an illegal conversion and' for this reason they have been sued, as the Bank has a right to proceed against them. The suit filed against the applicants is not in the capacity of partners but as persons having wrongful possession of the business and properties hypothecated and mortgaged with the Bank. 10. The applicants have been impleaded as defendants in the suit on the basis of an agreement between the applicants and the non-applicants 2 to 4, wherein the applicants have agreed with the non-applicants the partners of the firm, to be liable even for the debts incurred up to the date of their admission as partners. 11. In this connection it may be relevant to mention here the provisions of law as contained in sub-section (2) of section 31 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, which deals with the liability of a new partner. It says that a person who is introduced as a partner into a firm does not thereby become liable for any act of the firm done before he became a partner. The sub-section saves the provision of section 30 because under this section a minor admitted to a firm, on choosing to become a partner on attaining majority, incur liability for acts of the firm which were done wholly before he became a partner. 12. An agreement between the old partners and the incoming partner that he shall be liable for the existing debts will not by itself give the creditors of the , firm any right against him. The liability of the new partner commences from the date of his admission. He is not liable for the pre-existing debts. 12. An agreement between the old partners and the incoming partner that he shall be liable for the existing debts will not by itself give the creditors of the , firm any right against him. The liability of the new partner commences from the date of his admission. He is not liable for the pre-existing debts. Even if the incoming partner has agreed with his co-partners that as between themselves, that partnership shall be deemed to have commenced at an earlier date, or that the debts of the old firm shall be taken over by the new, this is not by' itself sufficient to give to the creditors, who are not parties to the agreement, any right to sue the new partner for anything done before he in fact became a partner. Such an agreement is binding only between the partners and does not give right to any creditor to sue to new partner for past debts. 13. In Russa Engineering Works. Ltd. v: Kanara Transport Co. and others (AIR 1926 Madras 1138) the Madras High Court has held -"Apart from privity of contract a creditor of the firm is not entitled to rely on an agreement between the partners. Where by a deed one partner is admitted into the partnership in place of another the former cannot be made liable in respect of antecedent transactions on the strength of an agreement contained in that deed between the partnes inter se that he would be liable for transactions hitherto incurred and further liability." 14. In Madho Prasad v. Gouri Dutt (AIR 1939 Patna 323) it has been also held :- "Where the partners of an existing firm along with a newly admitted partner acknowledge a certain amount to be due from the firm to their creditors such an acknowledgement does not amount to novation inasmuch as the prior liability of the partners does not become extinct." 15. In a subsequent decision the Madras High Court in Meenakshi Achi v. P.S.M. Subramanian Chattiar (AIR 1957 Madras 8) has held :- "Though the mere fact that a certain person has been introduced as a partner into a firm does not make him liable for the obligations incurred by the firm before he was so introduced, he may, by agreement between the partners, become liable for such obligations. But to determine whether an incoming partner became liable to an existing creditor of the firm, two questions have to be answered: Firstly, whether the new firm has assumed the liability to pay the debt Seconly, whether the creditor has agreed to accept the new firm as his debtor and to dischage the old partnership from its liability. A creditor cannot rely merely on agreement between the partners inter se such as that the new partner would be liable for antecedent debts. He must prove novation of contract, that is to say, he must prove both the conditions stated above in order to hold the new firm liable for his debt." 16. In the instant case, it is obvious from the impugned order that the• applicant No.2 had acknowledged the pre-existing loan through a letter to the plaintiff/Bank dated 11.5.1991 that the partnership of the firm had been re-constituted to overcome the financial difficulty of the firm in carrying on the business of the firm. The acknowledgement of pre-existing debts by the applicants newly admitted partners will not amount to novation of contract. The agreement between the partners does not give rise to any creditor to sue the new partners for the past debts. 17. The impugned order declining to delete the name of the applicants from the category of defendants in the suit is bad in law. Therefore, the same cannot be sustained and it is accordingly set aside. In the result revision is allowed.