RAMJILAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question that arises for decision in this second appeal by the plaintiff is whether the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gangapur was right in holding that the notice issued by the appellant-plaintiff under sec. 80 Civil P. C. is defective, and therefore, the suit is not maintainable.

(2.) THE plaintiff's case as set out in the plaint is that he is the manager of the joint Hindu family constituted by himself, and his minor son Girraj Parsad and carries on family business under the name and style Ramjilal Girrajparsad. It is alleged that two bales of cloth were purchased by the plaintiff from Shah Nemichand Heerachand of Bombay and the same were despatched to him to be delivered at Gangapur City vide RR No. 6998 dated 19-12-1959 but only one bale was delivered. Consequently he gave notice dated 19-7-1960 to the General Managar, Western Railway, Bombay under sec. 80 Civil P. C. for a claim of Rs. 1288. 51 paisa on account of price of one bale, interest thereon and notice charges and filed the present suit on 8-10-1960 in the court of Munsiff, Gangapur.

(3.) IN the Punjab case : Saligram vs. Dominion of INdia (4) in the first place the objection regarding validity of notice was not taken in a proper form. The notice in that case was given on behalf of Firm Saligram Tulsiram and the suit was brought by the same firm through its manager, who was described as such. The Court came to the conclusion that the body of the plaint and the reply of the defendant showed that the suit in essence was by the firm and not on behalf of one particular person. IN this view of the matter it was held that there is no material variance in the description of the person, who brought this suit and the person who sent the notice u/s. 80 C. P. C.