ORDER 30 Rule 1.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/952081/
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Bharat Sarvodaya Mills Co. Ltd. vs Mohatta Brothers AIR 1969 Guj 178

 Order 30, Rule 1(1) provides that any two or more persons claiming or
being liable as partners and carrying on business in India may sue or be sued
in the name of the firm, if any, of which such persons were partners at the
time of the accruing of the cause of action, and any party to a suit may in
such case apply to the Court for a statement of the names and addresses of
the persons who were, at the time of the accruing of the cause of action,
partners in such firm, to be furnished and verified in such manner as the
Court may direct. Under Order 30, Rule 1(2) where persons sue or are sued
as partners in the name of their firm under Sub-rule (1) it shall, in the case of
any pleading or other document required by or under this Code to be signed,
verified or certified by the plaintiff or the defendant, be sufficient if such
pleading or other document is signed, verified or certified by any one of
such persons. The expression 'such persons' will mean persons who were
partners at the time of accruing of the cause of action. Order 30, Rule 2(1)
provides that where a suit is instituted by partners in the name of their firm,
the plaintiffs or their pleader shall, on demand in writing by or on behalf of
any defendant, forthwith declare in writing the names and places of
residence of all the persons constituting the firm on whose behalf the suit is
instituted. Rule 2 Sub-rule (2) provides that where the plaintiffs or their
pleader fail to comply with any demand made under Sub-rule (1), all
proceedings in the suit may, upon an application for that purpose, be stayed
upon such terms as the Court may direct. Sub-rule (3) then provides that
where the names of the partners are declared in the manner referred to in
Sub-rule (1), the suit shall proceed in the same manner, and the same
consequences in all respects shall follow, as if they had been named as
plaintiffs in the plaint, provided that all the proceedings shall nevertheless
continue in the name of the firm. From these provisions of Order 30, it is
clear that it enables the suit to be brought by the partners or against the
partners in the name of their firm. A suit brought in the firm name is
really one by persons who were partners at the time of accrual of the
cause of action.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1431166/
MP HIGH COURT
Smt. Shanti Devi Sharma And Anr. vs Radheshyam Palod And Anr. on
14 January, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000 (3) MPHT 451

Rule 1 Order 30 C.P.C. further provides that where any two or more persons
claiming or being liable as partners and carrying on business in India may
sue or be sued in the name of the firm (if any) of which such persons were
partners at the time of the accruing of the cause of action, and any party to a
suit may in such case apply to the Court for a statement of the names and
addresses of the persons who were, at the time of the accruing of the cause
of action, partners in such firm, to be furnished and verified in such manner
as the Court may direct.
the Apex Court in its decision rendered in the case of Porushottam & Co. v.
Mani Lal & Sons, reported in AIR 1961 SC 325, wherein it was held that the
provisions of Order 30 Rules 1 and 2 are enabling provisions to permit
several persons, who are doing business as partners to sue or be sued in
the name of the firm Rule 2 would not have been in the form it is if the suit
instituted in the name of the firm was not regarded as, in fact, a suit by the
partners of the firm. The provisions of these Rules of Order XXX being
enabling provisions do not prevent the partners of a firm from suing or being
sued in their individual names.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/80775/
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Sohanlal Basant Kumar vs Umraomal Chopra on 6 May, 1985
Equivalent citations: 1985 (1) WLN 791

The view taken in M.A. Hussain's case AIR 1970 Mysore 299 was also
taken by the Patna High Court in Chiman Lal and Anr. v. Firm New India
Traders Rice Merchants and Ors. . In that case, a firm was registered in 1948
with two partners. Three more partners were subsequently added but they
did not care to get their names entered in the Register of firms. It was held
that Section 69(2) read with Order 30 Rule 1 C.P.C. apparently means that
when a suit is instituted in the name of a registered firm, only these
persons who are registered as partners of the firm could get the benefit
of a decree in favour of the firm or would be liable for a decree against
the firm and subject to these conditions the suit is maintainable. It was,
thus held that only the two partners whose names were contained in the
Register of Firms would be deemed to be the partners of the firm and the suit
was held to be maintainable.
In Purushottam Umed Bhai & Co. v. M/s Manilaland Sons , it was held
that the provisions of Order 30 Rules 1 and 2 are enabling provisions to
permit persons who are partners in a firm to sue or be sued in the name
of the firm.
However, Order 30 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes a
special procedure by which a suit may be brought in the name of the firm.
Order 30 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure enables two or more
persons, claiming or being liable as partners and carrying on business in
partnership, to sue or be sued in the name of the firm, of which such persons
are partners at the time of the accrual of the cause of action.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/182573820/
Bombay High Court
V Jayaraman (Aiyar) vs Vithal Vishwanath Kale

Then, Rule 1 of Order 30 only confers a privilege on the individuals constituting

the firm to sue or be sued in the name of the firm. C. K. Thakker's the Code of
Civil Procedure (EBC, 1st Edn)

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1373007/
Andhra High Court
Raya Reddaiah Choudary vs Krishna Finance Corporation
Equivalent citations: 2001 (1) ALD 462, 2001 (1) ALT 484

It is well settled that a partnership firm can be sued or can sue in the name of the firm.
Under Order 30, Rule, 1 CPC any, partner of the firm can sue in the name of the
firm. When a suit is filed by a firm duly represented by one of the partners, in law, the
suit is by all the partners. See Pursuhottam Umedbhai's case and Mandalsa Devi's
case (supra). Likewise, when a suit is filed against a firm, in law, the suit is against all
the partners of the firm. Unless otherwise required by any other law, it is not
necessary to array all the partners as defendants in the suit.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1765873/
Delhi High Court
Shanker Housing Corporation vs Mohan Devi And Eight Ors. on 2 December,
1977
Equivalent citations: AIR 1978 Delhi 255

The effect of using the name of the firm, as provided in Rule I, is merely to
bring all the partners before the Court and the procedure indicated in
Rules 1 and 2 of Order 30 is only a convenient method for showing the
persons who constituted the firm at the time of the accruing of the cause
of action, and a decree in favor of or against a firm, in the name of the
firm, has the same effect as a decree in favor of or against all the partners.
Rule 1 of Order 30, in providing the mode or form of the suit, prescribes a
requirement that the two or more persons who, claiming or being liable
as partners, sue or be sued in the name of the firm must be persons who
were partners at the time of the accruing of the cause of action.