Judgment :- This second appeal is directed against the judgment in A.S.No.47 of 2005 reversing the judgment of the trial Court in O.S.No.15 of 2002 and thereby dismissing the appellant/plaintiffs suit. Unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant. For convenience, parties are referred to as they are originally ranked in the suit. 2. Case of plaintiff is that plaintiff is the successful bidder in the auction conducted for the leasehold right of the land situated in S.No.48/2 of Veerichipalayam Village in Sankari Taluk for 3 years for fasalies 1408 to 1410. At the auction held on 31.07.1988, plaintiff deposited Rs.2,00,000/-(vide receipt Ex.A2). Further case of plaintiff is that defendants, who are in-charge of the Temple and its affairs were not able to hand over possession since one M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals was in possession of the property auctioned and whose lease period was over and applied for renewal of the licence for quarrying with the Government of Tamilnadu. Renewal of licence was not granted and hence M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals filed a revision to Government of India as envisaged under Minor Mineral Concession Rules and the said application was remanded for fresh disposal to the Government of Tamilnadu, which was challenged by defendants 4 and 5 in a Writ Petition before the High Court, Madras, which came to be dismissed on 22.09.2000. Alleging that defendants have not handed over possession to the plaintiff as per terms and conditions of auction notice, plaintiff filed the suit for refund of Rs.2,00,000/- paid by him as earnest money deposit along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. .3. Resisting the suit and admitting receipt of Rs.2,00,000/-towards earnest money deposit from the plaintiff, fourth defendant-Temple filed written statement contending that the plaintiff is a partner of M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals and was well aware of the fact that M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals has not delivered possession of the auctioned land. Fourth defendant further stated that M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals made payments of Rs.1,00,000/-per month as rent and said cheques were signed by the plaintiff as a Partner. According to the defendants, M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals have to pay Rs.34,00,000/- up to July 2002 and Rs.1,00,000/-per surface rent and plaintiff as a Partner of M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals is also liable to pay the said amount and also surface rent to the fourth defendant. According to the defendants, M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals have to pay Rs.34,00,000/- up to July 2002 and Rs.1,00,000/-per surface rent and plaintiff as a Partner of M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals is also liable to pay the said amount and also surface rent to the fourth defendant. It is further averred that plaintiff, as a Partner of M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals, should be aware that the application for renewal of mining lease filed by M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals was rejected by the Government of Tamilnadu and revision application filed before the Central Government is pending for disposal. Main defence of the defendants is that the inability of the defendants to confirm the auction in favour of the plaintiff was due to the legal proceedings initiated by M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals and not owing to any fault on the part of the defendants and the plaintiff has forfeited the auction amount entirely due to his conduct. 4. On the above pleadings, two issues were framed in the trial Court. On plaintiffs side, plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. One Kuppusamy, Village Assistant, Veeritchipalaym, Sankari Taluk, was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.D1 to D3 were marked. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court held that merely because M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals have not handed over possession, defendants-Temple was not justified in refusing to pay the amount. Trial Court further held that even without taking steps to get possession of the land in S.No.48/2, the defendants proceeded to auction the mining lease and therefore, the defendants are to blame themselves and cannot withhold earnest money deposit amount paid by the plaintiff and on this findings, the trial Court decreed plaintiffs suit and ordered refund of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 5. Aggrieved by the decreeing of suit, defendants 4 and 5 preferred appeal in A.S.No.47 of 2005. In the lower appellate Court, the defendants-Temple adduced additional evidence. Exs.B4 to B6-order copies in various writ petitions, Exs.B7 and B8-cheques issued to the Temple signed by the plaintiff as Partner of M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals and Exs.B9 and B10 were also adduced as additional evidence. In the lower appellate Court, the defendants-Temple adduced additional evidence. Exs.B4 to B6-order copies in various writ petitions, Exs.B7 and B8-cheques issued to the Temple signed by the plaintiff as Partner of M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals and Exs.B9 and B10 were also adduced as additional evidence. Upon consideration of evidence, lower appellate Court held that as per Section 25 of the Partnership Act, each and every partner is jointly and severally liable to the partnership firm and for liabilities of M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals, the plaintiff being a Partner is also liable. Lower appellate Court further held that being a Partner of M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals, plaintiffs claim for refund of Rs.2,00,000/-paid as per Ex.A2 Receipt is not sustainable since M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals have to pay huge sum of money to the temple authorities. Holding that the trial Court misdirected itself and arrived at a wrong conclusion, the lower appellate Court reversed the findings of trial Court and allowed the appeal and consequently, dismissed the suit. .6. Aggrieved by the reversal of trial Courts judgment, the unsuccessful plaintiff has filed the Second Appeal. At the time of admission, the following substantial question of law was formulated for consideration: ."Whether a partner is liable for the debt of the firm in his individual capacity even before the assets of the firm are proceeded against?" 7. Arguing on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff, Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel submitted that it is not the case of the defendants that partnership money has been paid towards earnest money deposit and while so, the defendants-Temple was not justified in having lien over the amount paid by the plaintiff. It was further contended that for any amount payable by M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals, defendants-Temple ought to have proceeded against partnership firm and the Temple is not entitled to have lien over the money payable to the plaintiff. 8. Taking me through various proceedings in various writ petitions and auction notice, learned counsel appearing for the fourth defendant-Temple Mr.M.Sundar submitted that being partner of M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals, plaintiff was well aware of the huge amount payable by the firm. 8. Taking me through various proceedings in various writ petitions and auction notice, learned counsel appearing for the fourth defendant-Temple Mr.M.Sundar submitted that being partner of M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals, plaintiff was well aware of the huge amount payable by the firm. It was further submitted that for the huge amount due from the firm, each partner shall be liable for all acts of the firm while he is a partner and therefore, the lower appellate Court rightly applied Section 25 of the Partnership Act (in short "the Act") and was right in reversing judgment of the trial Court. It was further submitted that no question of law, much less substantial question of law arises in this second appeal, warranting interference with the well considered judgment of lower appellate Court. 9. There is no dispute that the land in Survey No.48/2 of Veerichipalayam village – 14 acres belongs to fourth defendant-Arulmighu Thanneerkattu Perumal Thirukkovil. For mining of lime stones for a period of 3 years for fasalies 1408 to 1410, auction was conducted on 31.07.1998 and plaintiff was the successful bidder in the auction. As per Clause (2) of conditions of auction notice, an earnest money deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- is to be paid by way of demand draft, which was paid by the plaintiff vide Ex.A2-Receipt. As per Clause 7 of auction notice, immediately after the auction, the highest bidder has to deposit 50% of the auction-amount. Plaintiff was the highest bidder for a sum of Rs.29,91,000/-. As per Clause 7 of auction notice, the fourth defendant has to pay 50% of the amount i.e. Rs.14,95,500/-. According to the fourth defendant, the plaintiff has not paid the amount and as per Condition No.7, in case of default, the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is liable to be forfeited. 10. Contending that in default of payment of auction-amount in compliance with the conditions, earnest money deposit would be forfeited, learned counsel for the defendants-Temple placed reliance upon 2008 (5) CTC 385 (Jalal Nasar v. The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras). The defendants plea of forfeiture of earnest money deposit amount was not properly pleaded in the written statement and no issue was framed on this aspect. Pointing out absence of pleadings, trial Court declined to consider defence plea of forfeiture. The defendants plea of forfeiture of earnest money deposit amount was not properly pleaded in the written statement and no issue was framed on this aspect. Pointing out absence of pleadings, trial Court declined to consider defence plea of forfeiture. Lower appellate Court also did not examine the question of pleading of earnest money deposit amount on account of non- compliance of Clause (7) of conditions of auction. When both the Courts below did not proceed to examine non-compliance or otherwise of Clause (7), exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, question of compliance or otherwise of Clause (7) and the reasons therefor cannot be examined. 11. Admittedly, plaintiff is a partner of M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals, which is doing mining operations. After the lease period, M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals initiated proceedings for renewal of lease, which was rejected by the Government of Tamilnadu and M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals has filed a Revision Petition before the Central Government, Department of Mines and Minerals as per Minor Mineral Rules. Central Government remanded the matter for fresh disposal to the Government of Tamilnadu, which is challenged by the Temple in a Writ Petition before High Court, Madras. 12. Be that as it may, case of plaintiff is that he has no knowledge of writ proceedings and various proceedings between M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals and the Temple. Along with Ex.B1 letter, a cheque for Rs.1,00,000/-drawn in favour of the Temple has been enclosed and in the said cheque, plaintiff has signed as one of the partners of M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals. Likewise, in Exs.B7 and B8 cheques issued in favour of the Temple also, the plaintiff has signed as partner of M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals. The fact that the plaintiff has signed in the cheques-Exs.B1, B7 and B8 clearly shows that he was an active partner of M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals. As seen from Exs.B3 to B6 and as pointed out by the lower appellate Court, in Writ Petition No.12461 of 1998 filed by M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals, the plaintiff was shown as seventh respondent. 13. Referring to the cheques and various writ petitions, wherein the plaintiff was shown as seventh respondent, lower appellate Court rightly held that plaintiff was an active partner and that he was quite aware of the legal proceedings initiated by M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals for renewal of lease. 13. Referring to the cheques and various writ petitions, wherein the plaintiff was shown as seventh respondent, lower appellate Court rightly held that plaintiff was an active partner and that he was quite aware of the legal proceedings initiated by M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals for renewal of lease. Referring to the writ petitions, lower appellate Court was right in holding that because the firm continued its mining operations beyond licence period and because of legal proceedings initiated by the firm, of which the plaintiff was an active partner, possession could not be handed over. Case of the plaintiff was that he bid in the auction in his individual capacity. When the plaintiff was an active partner, to say that he was acting in his individual capacity is farfetched one. When possession of the land was all along with M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals, of which, plaintiff was an active partner, it was not open to the plaintiff to contend that there was violation of conditions of auction and claim for refund of the amount. 14. The substantial question of law presupposes liability of the firm. The contention of the plaintiff is two fold; (i) Fourth defendant-Temple cannot claim lien over the earnest money deposit made by the plaintiff and (ii) Temple ought to have proceeded against the firm to collect the amount of Rs.34,00,000/- allegedly due from the firm up to July 2002. 15. Learned senior counsel for plaintiff mainly contended that when the plaintiff has bid in the auction in his individual capacity and unless there is a specific clause in the contract, the defendants were not justified in retaining the amount as a lien for the amount payable by the firm. It was further argued that the Temple ought to have proceeded against the firm to recover the amount and without filing any civil suit, the Temple cannot seek to recover the amount by creating a lien over the amount. Learned counsel for the fourth defendant-Temple submitted that because of various proceedings initiated by M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals challenging the order passed by the Central Government, the Temple could not file suit for recovery of the amount and the Temple is awaiting conclusion of the proceedings before proceeding to recover the amount from the firm. Learned counsel for the fourth defendant-Temple submitted that because of various proceedings initiated by M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals challenging the order passed by the Central Government, the Temple could not file suit for recovery of the amount and the Temple is awaiting conclusion of the proceedings before proceeding to recover the amount from the firm. Non filing of any suit or any proceedings would not in any way preclude the Temple in retaining the amount payable to the individual partner. .16. Learned senior counsel mainly contended that without dissolution of the firm and without ascertaining the amount payable to the individual partners by the firm, the Temple was not justified in retaining the amount. Learned senior counsel would submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case, only Section 46 of the Act, would apply and lower appellate Court erred in applying Section 25 of the Partnership Act. 117. Section 46 comes under Chapter 6 – Dissolution of a firm. Section 46 deals with the method of distribution to be adopted in payment of debts and liabilities of the firm. Under Section 46 on the dissolution of the firm, the other partner or his representative is entitled as most of the other partners or their representatives to have the property of the firm applied in payment of the debts and liabilities of the firm and to have the surplus distributed according to their rights. 118. In the case of a dissolution, the dissolution closes the dealings between the partnership and others and eventually accounts between the partnership firm and other parties. As a firm M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals is pursuing the matter in fighting out the litigation against the Temple. While so, invoking Section 46 of the Partnership Act, is not appropriate. 119. Chapter 4 deals with relations of partners with third parties. Section 25 provides that every partner is liable, jointly with all other partners and also severally for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner. It is open to a creditor of the firm to recover the amount from any one or more of the partners. In 2005 (7) SCC 308 (Ashutosh vs. State of Rajasthan), Supreme Court has held that each partner shall be liable as if the debt of the firm has been incurred on his personal liability. .20. It is open to a creditor of the firm to recover the amount from any one or more of the partners. In 2005 (7) SCC 308 (Ashutosh vs. State of Rajasthan), Supreme Court has held that each partner shall be liable as if the debt of the firm has been incurred on his personal liability. .20. The amount of Rs.34,00,000/-is said to be due from M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals and Rs.1,00,000/- per month towards surface rent till the possession of the land is handed over to the Temple authorities. When a huge amount is due from the firm, as an active partner of M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals, the plaintiffs liability is joint and several with other partners. Upon analysis of facts and evidence and in the circumstances of the case, lower appellate Court was right in applying Section 25 of the Act and holding that the plaintiffs claim for refund of Rs.2,00,000/- is not sustainable. Since the liability of the partner is joint and several and coextensive with the firm, it cannot be contended that the Temple cannot retain the amount paid by the plaintiff and that it ought to have proceeded only against the assets of the firm. Upon analysis of the evidence and materials on record, lower appellate Court was right in reversing the judgment of the trial Court. The findings of the lower appellate Court do not suffer from any serious infirmity, warranting interference exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. 121. In the result, the judgment dated 01.02.2006 in A.S.No.47 of 2005 on the file of Principal District Court, Salem is confirmed and consequently, the Second Appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents.