(MT ) RADHARANI DASSAYA Vs. PURNA CHANDRA SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN my opinion this is a clear case. The only question is whether this suit is one which must fail because there was failure to give notice as provided in Section 80, Civil P.C. The suit was brought against a receiver appointed by the Court, and on referring to the prayers set out in para. 17 of the plaint it is clear that the suit is one for accounts. It is not a suit for damages for conversion. Under those circumstances, in my opinion, the case is governed by the, rulings in Beni Madhab Sukul V/s. Upendra Chandra Singha (1920) 53 I.C. 747, Dakshina Ranjan Ghose V/s. Omar Chand Oswal and Koti Reddi V/s. P. Subbiah (1918) 41 Mad. 792. The learned advocate for the appellants urged that in any event they might be given an opportunity to amend their plaint so that they might convert the suit into one for damages for conversion. IN my opinion it would not be right or reasonable at this stage to allow such an amendment of the proceedings, la my opinion the decree appealed from was correct and the appeal should be dismissed with costs. Patterson, J.

(2.) I agree.