THOMAS Vs. GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Against the dismissal of his suit by the lower appellate court the plaintiff has come in appeal.

(2.) The appellant sued the respondents for recovery of the value of timber and allied reliefs. On 6-5-1962 the plaintiff who was the partner of a firm by name ''Pulikkal Saw Mill" sold to the first defendant a Kadumkozhu log for Rs. 84/-. The plaintiff's case is that the first defendant surreptitiously removed another log belonging to the category called Mylellu and much more costly than the timber actually sold on 6-5-1962. The plaintiff set the criminal law in motion against the first defendant without success. The suit was therefore laid for recovery of the value of Mylellu log and for certain ancillary reliefs. The first defendant resisted the suit on various grounds while the second defendant contended that he is an unnecessary party to the litigation. The Trial Court gave a decree to the plaintiff for Rs. 91/- with interest at 6 per cent from 7-5-1962. On appeal by the first defendant as A. S. No. 29 of 1967 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam, the appellate court while confirming the decision of the Trial Court on merits dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the suit is not maintainable due to non compliance with the provisions of O.30 R.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) The short point that falls for decision is whether the suit as framed is bad being violative of O.30 R.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The relevant statutory provision may be read as follows: