SARASPUR MANUFACTURE CO Vs. BBAND CIRAILWAY CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are four companion applications under a. 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. In all the four cases the plaintiffs desired to sue the Bombay, Baroda and. Central India Railway Company to recover damages for the loss of goods. The title of the defendant was entered in each plaint as follows: "The Agent, B.B. & C.I. Ry. Company Ltd.", but the prayer was that the defendant company should pay the amount sued for. In two of the suits the defendant company filed their written statements pleading to the merits without taking any objection to the form of the title. In the other two suits they filed written statements, not only pleading to the merits, but also objecting that the plaintiffs suits could not lie as they were filed against the defendant's Agent. The Small Cause Court Judge dismissed all the suits on the ground that they were badly framed. He relied upon a decision of Mr. Justice Ross in Sinehi Ram Bihari Lall v. The Agent, East Indian Railway Co. (1921) 64 Ind. Cas. 125.

(2.) Now it cannot be disputed that in the past there have been a very large number of suits filed by traders in this Presidency against railway companies in many of which the title of the defendant has been entered in the plaint in this form: "The Agent A.B. Railway Company, Ltd,", and that hitherto no objection whatever has been taken to this description. There can be no question that the railway companies considered that they were the defendants in such suits, although it may be conceded that the title of the defendant was not in accordance with the forms in Appendix A, First Schedule, to the Civil Procedure Code, under heading "Title of Suits".

(3.) If a company is a party to a suit it should be described either as "The A.B. Company Ltd., having its registered office at" or as "A. B. a public officer of the C. D. Company".