JUDGMENT : 1. The civil revision petition is filed against the fair and decreetal orders, dated 02.11.2017, in I.A.No.518 of 2016 in I.A.No.295 of 2006 in O.S.No.72 of 1933, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Devakottai. 2. The learned Subordinate Judge, Devakottai, allowed the interlocutory application in I.A.No.518 of 2016 by substituting the partner Thiru.V.Lakshmanan, to represent the respondent/petitioner Firm, namely, M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm. Challenging the said order, the Advocate-cum- Receiver of common estate of Ettukarai Valambars of Kottaiyur, in O.S.No.72 of 1933, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Devakottai, jas filed the present civil revision petition. 3. The facts in nutshell to be considered for the purpose of deciding the present civil revision petition are that the respondent/petitioner Mr.V.Lakshmanan is the partner of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm. The said interlocutory application was filed on behalf of the Firm. Earlier, the Firm filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.295 of 2006, before the Subordinate Court, Devakottai, for a direction to the revision petitioner/Court Receiver to execute a sale deed in accordance with the draft sale deed filed along with the above said interlocutory application. During the pendency of I.A.No.295 of 2006, Thiru.M.Krishnan, who represented M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm, died on 12.05.2009. Thus, the Partnership Firm was reconstituted on 21.07.2009 with the remaining partners and the respondent/petitioner, namely, Thiru.V.Lakshmanan was included as a new partner. The respondent/petitioner was authorized to handle the land dispute as per the Clause 7(3)(c) of the Reconstituted Deed. Accordingly, a Memo was filed by the respondent/petitioner seeking permission to represent the Firm by substituting his name in I.A.No.295 of 2006. The respondent/petitioner was permitted to substitute his name as per the orders of this Court, dated 07.09.2009, passed in M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2009 in C.R.P.(MD) No.1259 of 2009. The revision petitioner/Court Receiver also sent a reply to the Firm vide letter dated 16.06.2013 referring the respondent/petitioner as partner of the Firm as per Clause 13 of the Partnership Deed, dated 21.10.1982. In the event of death or retirement of partners, the same would not ipso facto dissolve the Partnership Firm. Therefore, the Partnership Firm continues even after the death or retirement of partners. Under these circumstances, the respondent/petitioner filed I.A.No.518 of 2016 seeking permission to substitute his name as the representative of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm. 4. The revision petitioner/respondent objected the substitution petition by stating that originally a Memo was filed to substitute Thiru.V.Lakshmanan his wife Tmt.L.Gowri. Therefore, the Partnership Firm continues even after the death or retirement of partners. Under these circumstances, the respondent/petitioner filed I.A.No.518 of 2016 seeking permission to substitute his name as the representative of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm. 4. The revision petitioner/respondent objected the substitution petition by stating that originally a Memo was filed to substitute Thiru.V.Lakshmanan his wife Tmt.L.Gowri. However, it was not filed under Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure. M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm was dissolved on account of the death of the partner, namely, Sri.Krishnan Servai. Therefore, all the partners in the Firm must be impleaded as party respondents. In view of the fact that all the partners were not impleaded as party respondents in the litigation, the present interlocutory application filed by Mr.V.Lakshmanan in the representative capacity of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm, is not maintainable. 5. It was further contended that the respondent/petitioner Mr.V.Lakshmanan is not a partner of M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm and it was not reconstituted on 21.07.2009. A mere perusal of the reconstituted deed shows that fraud has been played. M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm commenced a deed of partner on 21.10.1982 with twenty persons as its partners. The said deed was not filed before the Trial Court. The reconstituted deed disclosed that on the death of a partner, the benefits of the Firm would be inherited by his legal heirs. As per the reconstituted deed, dated 21.07.2009, various partners died and some of the partners were alleged to have transferred their shares in favour of Thiru.V.Lakshmanan and others. Such a transfer of shares is impermissible in law. The Court Receiver mainly raised an objection that no proper reconstitution of the Firm was done and new partners have been incorporated in the Firm. The Court Receiver has questioned the transfer of shares by the other partners in favour of the newly inducted partners and further questioned the manner in which, the reconstitution deed was executed. 6. The Trial Court formulated the issues for consideration and on the side of the respondent/petitioner, Exs.P1 to P57 were marked and he was examined as P.W.1and on the side of the revision petitioner/respondent, no document was marked. 7. The Trial Court, after scrutinizing the oral and documentary evidence, made a finding that initially, as per Ex.P17, original Firm was reconstituted due to the death of the partners and transfer of shares. As per Ex.P17, there are fourteen partners. 7. The Trial Court, after scrutinizing the oral and documentary evidence, made a finding that initially, as per Ex.P17, original Firm was reconstituted due to the death of the partners and transfer of shares. As per Ex.P17, there are fourteen partners. Among them, Mr.V.Lakshmanan and his wife Mrs.L.Gowri were also inducted as partners. As per 7(3) of Ex.P17, Mr.V.Lakshmanan and his wife Mrs.L.Gowri were authorized to represent the Firm to purchase the property. The extraction of the relevant portion of the document was also considered by the Trial Court and the same is extracted hereunder: "Sri.V.Lakshmanan and L.Gowri the parties of the 14th and 13th part are authorized to all acts in respect of the property of measuring about 4.60 acres to be conveyed by the court receiver in the suit in O.S.No.2/33 on the file of Sub- Court, Devakottai as per the order in I.A.No.62/1986 as detailed below: a. All the parties consent and ratify the transfer of their respective shares in the said property to and in favour V.Lakshmanan and L.Gowri, in equal shares for the consideration received. b. V.Lakshmanan and L.Gowri shall be entitled to all the profits and liabilities that may arise in respect of the dealing of the said property at the ratio of 50% each. c. V.Lakshmanan and L.Gowri are to exclusively to handle all the case and disputes in respect of the said property and to bear all the expenses and liabilities, charges, tax, and other fees that may have to be incurred in dealing with the said property. d. No partner other than V.Lakshmanan and L.Gowri is liable to pay any charges, expenses including any tax liabilities or to bear any loss and to appropriate any profit that may arise in respect in dealing with the said property or in the business of dealing in the said property." 8. Clause 7(3) of Ex.P17 is very clear and unambiguous that the power is conferred upon Mr.V.Lakshmanan and his wife Mrs.L.Gowri to purchase 4.60 acres of land as per the order in I.A.No.62 of 1986 in O.S.No.72 of 1933. In order to enforce the said order, the present interlocutory application is filed to substitute Mr.V.Lakshmanan as petitioner in I.A.No.295 of 2006, in the place of the deceased M.Krishnan Servai. The similar order passed by this Court in M.P.No.1 of 2009 in C.R.P.(MD) No.1259 of 2009, was marked as Ex.P14. In order to enforce the said order, the present interlocutory application is filed to substitute Mr.V.Lakshmanan as petitioner in I.A.No.295 of 2006, in the place of the deceased M.Krishnan Servai. The similar order passed by this Court in M.P.No.1 of 2009 in C.R.P.(MD) No.1259 of 2009, was marked as Ex.P14. The miscellaneous petition filed by the revision petitioner/respondent in M.P.No.3 of 2009 in C.R.P.(MD) No.1259 of 2009 was pending and there was no interim order. Under those circumstances, the Subordinate Court, Devakottai, considered the grounds raised by the revision petitioner/Court Receiver that under Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, impleading of the legal representatives of the deceased is permissible. However, the respondent/petitioner was represented as one of the partners of the Firm, who was duly authorized by the other partners, as per Ex.P17. In the cases of Partnership Firms, if anyone of the partners died, the Firm has to be reconstituted either by the existing partners or by the inducting or adding new partners by way of reconstitution deed. For the substitution of any person in the place of death of any partner, there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, I.A.No.518 of 2016 filed for substituting the name of the partner is maintainable under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Though the allegation of fraud has been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the revision petitioner/Court Receiver, the said allegation was not substantiated through acceptable evidence. Accordingly, the Trial Court allowed the interlocutory application filed by the respondent/petitioner. 9. Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with death, marriage and insolvency of parties. The provisions, enumerated under Order XXII are relevant if there is death of plaintiffs or defendants or in case of death of one or several plaintiffs or defendants. Even Order XXII Rule 4-A of the Code of Civil Procedure provides the procedure where there is no legal representative. Order XXII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that no abatement by reason of death after hearing. The entire rules under Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure deal with the procedures to be adopted in the event of death of the plaintiff or defendant and for continuance of the suit as the rights of the parties exist, even after such death. The entire rules under Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure deal with the procedures to be adopted in the event of death of the plaintiff or defendant and for continuance of the suit as the rights of the parties exist, even after such death. Therefore, Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure may be relevant in case of the death of the plaintiffs or defendants or one of the plaintiffs or one of the defendants, as the case may be. 10. As far as the lis on hand is concerned, the party is "M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm", represented by its partner. M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm itself is a legal entity. Thus, for all purposes, for the adjudication of the suits or interlocutory applications or connected applications, M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm, represented by its partner, is the legal person and therefore, the death of one partner or more partners would not construe that the Firm itself died. The Firm, being an independent legal entity, survives, the cause continuous and so also the legal right. Thus, death of one partner of the Firm, who is just a representative of the Firm would not be construed as the death of the plaintiff or defendant as contemplated under Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The death of one partner may not have any implications with reference to the legal right of the Partnership Firm, which is a party and legal person in the eye of law. Under these circumstances, the death of one partner of a Firm, who is the representative of the Firm, is immaterial in respect of pursuing the suit and establishing the rights of the parties. Hence, the death of the plaintiff or defendant as contemplated under Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable in such cases, where the Partnership Firm is a party to the suit and one of the representative of the Firm dies. In all such circumstances, it is only a "substitution" and it cannot be construed as "impleading". 11. The meaning for the word "substitution" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as follows: "1. A designation of a person or thing to take the place of another person or thing. 2. The process by which one person or thing takes the place of another person or thing. 3. Parliamentary law. An amendment by replacing one or more words with others. A designation of a person or thing to take the place of another person or thing. 2. The process by which one person or thing takes the place of another person or thing. 3. Parliamentary law. An amendment by replacing one or more words with others. See amendment by substituting under AMEMDMENT (3). 4. Roman law. The nomination of a person to take the place of a previously named heir who has refused or failed to accept an inheritance. - Also termed common substitution; vulgar substitution. 5. Roman law. The nomination of a person to take the place of, or to succeed, a descendant who is under the age of puberty and in the potestas of the testator, if the descendant has died before reaching puberty. This type of substitution was known as a pupillary substitution. If a descendant of any age failed to take by reason of lunacy, the substitution was known as an exemplary substitution or quasi-pupillary substitution. 6. Roman law. A testator's designation of a person to whom the property was to be given by the person named as heir, or by the heir of that person. See FIDEICOMMISSUM. 7. Civil law. the designation of a person to succeed another as beneficiary of an estate, usu. involving a fideicommissum.-- Also termed (in sences 6 & 7) fideicommissary substitution." 12. The word "impleading" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as follows: "The addition of another party, esp. a third party, into a lawsuit. Cf. INTERPLEADER; INTERVENTION(1)” 13. The word "impleading" is defined as the addition of another party, especially, a third party into a lawsuit. It has been bifurcated as "direct impleading" and "indirect impleading". The meaning of "direct impleading" is the addition of a specific defendant or third party and the meaning of "indirect impleading" is the addition of a party, who intervenes through interpleader. Therefore, the very meaning of the word "impleading" contemplates that the addition of another party, especially, a third party, into a lawsuit. 14. In the present case on hand, the concept of "impleading" is absolutely inapplicable in view of the fact that all the partners are already arrayed as parties and they are represented by one partner of the Firm in the suit. Therefore, there is no issue of bringing a new party in the Firm. 14. In the present case on hand, the concept of "impleading" is absolutely inapplicable in view of the fact that all the partners are already arrayed as parties and they are represented by one partner of the Firm in the suit. Therefore, there is no issue of bringing a new party in the Firm. By virtue of the reconstitution of the partnership deed, the partners became the members of the Firm and therefore, they can never be construed as new parties or third parties. Once a civil suit is filed and a Partnership Firm is arrayed as a plaintiff or defendant, then the very impleading of the Firm as a plaintiff or defendant indicates that it is binding on all the partners, who all are members of the Firm. Therefore, any Decree or Judgment passed in favour of the Firm or against the Firm, the same is binding on all the partners of the Firm and they cannot seek exception by stating that they have no knowledge or they have not participated in the legal proceedings. Under these circumstances, once a Partnership Firm is arrayed as a party in the civil suit, the Firm consists of the partners and, for the purpose of convenience and to avoid multiple stands, one partner has been chosen by the other partners, to represent the case on behalf of the Partnership Firm. In other words, for the purpose of convenience and for the purpose of conducting the legal proceedings, all the partners are resolving to appoint one partner for the purpose of representing the cases before the Court of law or before any authority, as the case may be. This being the concept of "impleading", Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure is undoubtedly inapplicable in a case, where a representing member of the partnership died and another partner is substituted for the continuance of the law suit. 15. This being the factum, this Court is of the considered opinion that the interlocutory application filed by one of the inducted partners, namely, Mr.V.Lakshmanan representing M/s.Karpagavinayagar Firm and to substitute the name in lieu of the expired partner in I.A.No.518 of 2016 is well within the ambit of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the same is maintainable. 16. 16. Mere substitution of one partner in lieu of the partner, who died, would not affect the cause and the rights of the respective parties. Such a substitution is made and required for the purpose of continuance of the law suit and to defend the Partnership Firm, which is a party and legal person. Therefore, the very objection raised by the Court Receiver is not only unnecessary and it shows that the manner in which the objections were raised against the Firm itself. 17. The Court Receivers are expected to be judicious, neutral, impartial and they have to act always in the interest of the estate and they are appointed by the Courts to administer. A Court Receiver can never take any contrary view or act against anyone of the party. It is the duty mandatory on the part of the Court Receiver to ensure that always he acts with impartiality and do justice to the estate as well as the beneficiaries as per the terms and conditions of the appointment and as well as the Courts time to time. However, in the present case on hand, the objections raised by the Court Receiver even for substitution of a partner in the Partnership Firm are highly unwarranted and shows the attitude of the Court Receiver, wherein he had taken an indifferent view, which expresses the act of partiality in the matter of dealing with the estate. 18. In view of the discussions made in the aforementioned paragraphs, this Court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the fair and decreetal orders, dated 02.11.2017, in I.A.No.518 of 2016 in I.A.No. 295 of 2006 in O.S.No.72 of 1933, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Devakottai, are inconsonance with the legal principles and there is no infirmity and accordingly, it stands confirmed and the civil revision petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.