BHARDIA BROTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three second appeals have been ordered to be heard analogously since the parties arc the same, and they involve common questions of law and fact. This judgment, therefore, will govern all of them.

(2.) ALL these three second appeals arise out of three suits filed by the same plaintiff who is the appellant in each of these appeals. Second Appeal No. 190/68 arises out of a suit for recovery of damages of Rs. 828. 00 on account of short delivery of goods (sixty bags of Motichur) delivered at Malgodown, Cuttack, indented through the Railways from Kissengunj. Second Appeal No. 191/68 is also from a suit for damages of Rs. 847-08 on account of short delivery of a consignment of mustard oil, and Second Appeal No. 273/68 is also a similar appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of damages of Rs. 669-75 on account of short delivery of consignment of motichur. All these consignments, in all the three suits, were to be delivered at malgodown, Cuttack.

(3.) THE plaintiff in all these three suits is Messrs Bhardia Brothers. Originally the plaintiff was described as "messrs Bhardia Brothers, a registered firm, having its place of business at Malgodown, Cuttack. " Subsequently it was amended to: "messrs Bhardia Brothers, a branch of a registered firm having its principal place of business at 161/1 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Calcutta, and a place of business at malgodown, Chowliagunj, Cuttack. " In the petition for amendment the plaintiff stated: "the Plaintiff is a branch business of a registered partnership firm in the name and style of "balabagas Hullashchand" the registration number being 35747 of date 20-12-58 (Constituted under partnership-deed dated 19-6-58), having its principal place of business at 161/1 Mahatma gandhi Road, Calcutta-7, and is carrying on business of oil, Motichur and various food-stuffs at Malgodown, Cuttack. " the need for this amendment arose because on account of certain defences taken by the Union of India representing the railways. Those defences were as follows: (1) That the original plaintiff in this case being "bhardia Brothers" who is not a registered firm this suit is not maintainable under Section 69 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act; (2) That the firm Balabagas Hullas Chand cannot maintain the suit as the said firm is not the owner of the goods and no notice under Section 80, c. P. C. was served on behalf of the said firm, and (3) The plaintiff being not a registered firm, the alleged principal firm cannot cover the defect under Section 69 (2) of the Act. Moreover, it is denied that the plaintiff is a branch of the registered firm "bala-bagas hullas Chand. "