Skip to main content
← back
Informative

Delhi High Court on Execution of Decree Against Partners: Partners Are Jointly and Severally Liable.

Update / Judgement Date

07 Dec 2025

Source

WCP News Bulletin

Author

Sakshi Bhardwaj — WCP Legal Desk

Reading Time

2 min read

Civil LawOther Legal Matters
Delhi High Court on Execution of Decree Against Partners: Partners Are Jointly and Severally Liable.
WCP News Bulletin
Headnote:

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition challenging dismissal of objections under Section 47 CPC and upheld issuance of warrants of arrest in execution proceedings, holding that partners are jointly and severally liable for acts of the partnership firm and that execution against an admitted partner is legally permissible.


Background:

• The petitioner was judgment debtor No. 2 in a money recovery decree dated 15.03.2016, modified on 03.05.2017.

• The decree was passed against a partnership firm (defendant No. 1) and the petitioner (defendant No. 2).

• During execution, the petitioner filed objections under Section 47 CPC claiming that his liability was limited to 30% profit share in the firm.

• The Execution Court dismissed the objections by order dated 27.11.2025 and directed issuance of warrants of arrest, subject to deposit of subsistence allowance.


Court’s Observations:

• Section 25 of the Partnership Act makes every partner jointly and severally liable for acts of the firm.

• Order XXI Rule 50 CPC permits execution of a decree against a partner who admitted being a partner during the relevant period.

• The petitioner was admittedly a partner when the cause of action arose and had represented the firm before the Trial Court.

• Disputes between partners inter se cannot be adjudicated in execution proceedings as they do not arise between decree holder and judgment debtor.


Legal Provisions Discussed:

• Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

• Section 25, Indian Partnership Act, 1932

• Order XXI Rule 50, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908


Final Order:

• Petition dismissed as frivolous.

• Impugned order dated 27.11.2025 upheld.

• Additional costs of ₹10,000 imposed on the petitioner, payable to the decree holder within one week, over and above the costs already imposed.

Case: Pankaj Saini v. KL Sharma & Anr.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Justice Girish Kathpalia

Date of Decision: 08 December 2025

Petition No.: CM(M) 2376/2025 (with CM APPL. 77292/2025 & 77291/2025)