(1.) IN the suit which is the subject-matter of this appeal the plaintiff claimed damages for non-delivery of a hale of cloth despatched from Ahmadabad to Muzaffarpur railway station. The bale of cloth was not delivered by the defendant in spite of several demands made by the plaintiff and in spite of notices under Section 77 of the INdian Railways Act and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The case of the defendant was that the suit was not maintainable because the plaintiff firm was not registered and Section 69 (2) of the Partnership Act was a bar. The defendant also denied liability to pay compensation as the loss of consignment was due to circumstances beyond the control of the defendant. The trial court held that notices under Section 77 of the INdian Railways Act and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure were properly served. The trial court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation, and since there was no disclosure on behalf of the defendant there must be an inference of negligence and misconduct on the part of the railway. The trial court held that defendant No. 3, the Western Railway, and defendant No. 1, the Union of INdia, would be liable to pay the compensation and there was no liability on the part of defendant No. 2, the North Eastern Railway. The trial court, however, dismissed the suit on the ground of the bar imposed by Section 69 (2) of the INdian Partnership Act. The decree of the trial court has been upheld by the lower appellate court and it was held that the suit was not maintainable because the plaintiff firm was not registered.
(2.) ON behalf of the plaintiff who has preferred this appeal it was contended by learned Counsel that the view of the law taken by the lower appellate court is wrong and the case is governed not by Section 69 (1) and (2) of the Indian Partnership Act but by Section 69 (3) of the Indian Partnership Act. The provisions of Section 69 ot the Indian Partnership Act are reproduced below:--