A misdescription of the name of the proposed defendant in a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not render the notice bad and invalid, provided it is made clear that it is the Government against whom the plaintiff is seeking relief.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff of the trial Court is the appellant in this appeal and the only point raised in this Court on behalf of the appellant is whether upon the facts of this case which are undisputed the Courts below should have decreed the suit after holding that the notice served under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was a legal and valid notice.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the following are the allegations in the plaint: The plaintiff is a brass and bell-metal dealer of Midnapur town and pro forma defendantdebendra Nath Kali is another dealer in such goods. They despatched several bags of brass and bell-metal scrap in June, 1945 to one S. C. De alias Satish Chandra De at Armenian Ghat in Calcutta under four railway invoices, the plaintiff being the consignor under three of them and the pro forma defendant being the consignor under the remaining invoice. Immediately after delivery of the goods had been taken by the consignee, the goods were seized by the police and a criminal case under Ordinance (XIX of 1943) was started at Bankura against the plaintiff and the pro forma defendant. They were ultimately discharged on 5th February, 1947 and thereafter they prayed for return of their goods. But the Magistrate who dealt with the matter held on 8th January, 1948 that they had no remedy as the goods had already been delivered to the B. N. Railway on 13th February, 1947. A revision case was thereafter filed before the Sessions Judge who after notice to the railway passed an order on 30th April. 1948 for delivery of the goods to the plaintiff and pro forma defendant Debendra at Kharagpur by the B. N. Railway. The latter failed to deliver the goods to them and hence the plaintiff brought the present suit for recovery of the price of the goods covered by the three consignments sent by him. The claim was laid at Rs. 1,919/12/- being the value of 17 mds. 5 srs. and 10 chhataks of brass and bell-metal scrap at the rate of Rs. 112/- per maund. '

( 3 ) VARIOUS defences were raised on behalf of the Dominion of India, namely, that the suit was not maintainable in its present form, that the plaintiff was not the owner of the goods and the notice under Section 80 of the Code was not a legal and valid notice. All these objections were upheld by the trial Court and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff preferred an appeal from the judgment and decree of the trial Court and the lower appellate Court held, contrary to the view of the trial Court, that the suit is maintainable at the instance of the plaintiff who is the owner of the goods. But all the same the lower appellate Court affirmed the decree of the trial Court on the finding that the notice under Section 80 of the Code was bad and insufficient. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal questioning the legality of the above finding and consequently, the correctness of the decision of the lower appellate Court.

( 5 ) THE only question raised in this appeal on behalf of the appellant is whether the notice under Section 80 of the Code was a good and valid notice. The notice or rather the copy of the notice kept by the plaintiff was marked Ext. 3 in the trial Court. The notice was addressed to the General Manager, B. N. Railway. The service of the notice is no longer questioned in this Court by the contesting respondent, the Union of India representing the B. N. Railway. The copy of the notice shows that two enclosures were sent along with it one being a copy of the plaint which the appellant intended to file and another being the order of the District Judge or rather the Sessions Judge of Bankura passed on 30th April, 1948 to which a reference has already been made. As the contesting respondent is not producing any document to show what notice or paper was received by the General Manager, it may very well be taken, as has been done by the lower appellate Court, that the enclosures mentioned in the copy of the notice were actually sent a