ORDER: The revision petitioners are the decree holders in E.P.No.11 of 1997 in O.S.No.139 of 1994 on the file of District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar. The first respondent/ third party filed E.A.No.51 of 1998 under Sec.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure to dismiss E.P.No.11 of 1997 on the ground that the decree is not executable. The decree-holders filed counter to the said application and oral evidence was let in on either side and documents were also filed. After hearing the parties, the learned District Munsif allowed E.A.No.51 of 1998 and aggrieved against this, the present revision is filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel of both sides. 3. The points that arise for consideration are: (1) Whether the order passed by the Court below is proper and correct? (2) Whether E.A.No.51 of 1998 is maintainable under Sec.47 of Civil Procedure Code? 4.Points: It is admitted that the revision petitioners/ plaintiffs filed the suit against the second respondent/ defendant in O.S.No.139 of 1994 for recovery of arrears of rent. The defendant has been described as Gurusamy and Co., Virudhunagar represented by the proprietor Kumaresan. The suit was hotly contested by the second respondent/ defendant and decree was granted in favour of the plaintiffs as prayed for on 16.11.1995. Thereafter, the decree holders filed E.P.No.11 of 1997 under O.21, Rules 35 and 36 of Civil Procedure Code to execute the decree. During the pendency of the execution petition only, the first respondent/ third respondent filed the petition under Sec.47 of Civil Procedure Code to dismiss the execution petition on the ground that the decree obtained by the plaintiffs cannot be enforced. 5. Learned counsel for the first respondent/ third party contended that the plaintiffs filed the suit against Gurusamy and Co. represented by the proprietor Kumaresan. Admittedly, Kumaresan and the first respondent herein are the sons of deceased Gurusamy. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the third party that Gurusamy and Co. is only a partnership firm and the respondents 1 and 2 are the partners. However, the plaintiffs filed the suit only against the second respondent proclaiming him as the proprietor of the said company. This being so, the decree cannot be executed against the third party. 6.Per contra, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/ plaintiffs contended that the application filed by the third party under Sec.47 of Civil Procedure Code is not maintainable under law. This being so, the decree cannot be executed against the third party. 6.Per contra, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/ plaintiffs contended that the application filed by the third party under Sec.47 of Civil Procedure Code is not maintainable under law. Sec.47 can be invoked only by a party to the suit and not by a stranger. It cannot be said that the third party is a representative of the defendant in the suit. It is settled principle of law that any partner can represent the firm. The partnership deed has not been filed by the third party into the Court to prove the contention that Kumaresan had retired from the partnership firm. The execution application is a mala fide one and the third party had been set up only by his brother, who was the defendant in the suit. There were huge arrears of rent and they were paid only after filing of civil revision petition. The decree-holder is a charitable institution and it is put to much hardship on account of non payment of huge arrears of rent. 7. Sec.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure is extracted as follows to appreciate the contentions of the parties: 47. Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree: (1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. (2) The Court may, subject to any objection as to limitation or jurisdiction treat a proceeding under this Section as a suit or a suit as a proceeding and may, if necessary, order payment of any additional Court fees. (3) Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purposes of this Section, be determined by the Court. 8. The language employed under Sec.47 would clearly indicate that any party to the suit or a representative of the party can invoke Sec.47 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is seen from the copy of the plaint that originally the suit was filed by the plaintiffs against Gurusamy and Co., represented by the proprietor Kumaresan. Admittedly, the suit was not filed against the partnership firm, but only against the proprietor Kumaresan. It is seen from the copy of the plaint that originally the suit was filed by the plaintiffs against Gurusamy and Co., represented by the proprietor Kumaresan. Admittedly, the suit was not filed against the partnership firm, but only against the proprietor Kumaresan. Now, the third party has filed document, namely, Ex.P-4 to show that Gurusamy and Co. was a partnership firm even in the year 1988. No other document has been filed on the side of the plaintiffs to show that the partnership firm was ever dissolved and ultimately it was converted into a proprietary concern. No doubt, the partnership deed has not been filed by the third party and the production of the same would have thrown light as to who were the partners. But the non-production of the partnership deed would not affect the case of the third party when once it is conceded that Gurusamy and Co., is only the partnership firm and not a proprietary concern. In my view, as the plaintiffs have obtained the decree against the proprietary concern, wherein the third party is also a partner, it cannot be said that the decree is a valid one. It is only when the plaintiffs obtained a valid decree in accordance with law, then only it can be enforced; but in this case, it is evidently clear that the decree has been obtained only against the proprietary concern and not against the partnership firm. It is only under such circumstance, the Court below allowed the execution application filed by the third party on the ground that the decree cannot be enforced as it is not valid under law. 9. The third party was examined as witness and 7 documents were marked. Similarly, one witness was examined on the side of the decree holders and 3 documents were marked. In fact, R.W.1 in the course of cross-examination admitted that he was aware that since 1982 Gurusamy and Co., was functioning as a partnership concern. If that be so, what was the reason for filing the suit describing the concern as a proprietary concern has not been explained. It is admitted that there is basic and fundamental difference between a firm and a proprietary concern. If that be so, what was the reason for filing the suit describing the concern as a proprietary concern has not been explained. It is admitted that there is basic and fundamental difference between a firm and a proprietary concern. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the description of the firm itself is sufficient and it is not necessary to point out whether it is a partnership firm or a proprietary one. When the revision petitioners obtained a decree against the proprietor, it cannot be enforced against the partner of a company. Although R.W.1 attempted to state that after the demise of Gurusamy, the property was rendered out to Kumaresan, no rent deed has been filed. No document has been filed on the side of the revision petitioners to show that Gurusamy and Co., is a proprietary concern; but the documents filed on the side of the third party clearly and clinchingly establish that Gurusamy and Co., is only a partnership company and as the plaintiffs failed to obtain a decree against the partners, it cannot be enforced. The order passed by the Court below is proper and correct and no interference is called for. 10. For the reasons stated above, the revision petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No.15236 of 2001 is closed.