Mr. M, Mr. N and Mr. P were partners in a firm, which was dealing in refrigerators. On 1st October, 2018, Mr. P retired from partnership, but failed to give public notice of his retirement. After his retirement, Mr. M, Mr. N and Mr. P visited a trade fair and enquired about some refrigerators with latest techniques. Mr. X, who was exhibiting his refrigerators with the new techniques was impressed with the interactions of Mr. P and requested for the visiting card of the firm. The visiting card also included the name of Mr. P as a partner even though he had already retired. Mr. X. supplied some refrigerators to the firm and could not recover his dues from the firm. Now, Mr. X wants to recover the dues not only from the firm, but also from Mr. P. Analyse the above case in terms of the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and decide whether Mr. P is liable in this situation.

A retiring partner continues to be liable to third party for acts of the firm after his retirement until public notice of his retirement has been given either by himself or by any other partner. But the retired partner will not be liable to any third party if the latter deals with the firm without knowing that the former was partner. \nAlso, if the partnership is at will, the partner by giving notice in writing to all the other partners of his intention to retire will be deemed to be relieved as a partner without giving a public notice to this effect. \nAlso, as per section 28 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, where a man holds himself out as a partner, or allows others to do it, he is then stopped from denying the character he has assumed and upon the faith of which creditors may be presumed to have acted. \nIn the light of the provisions of the Act and facts of the case, Mr. P is also liable to Mr. X.