( 1 ) THE present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 21st day October of 1969 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Suit No. lll of 1967 by which the suit of the appellant was dismissed.

( 2 ) THE case of the appellant in brief is that the appellant being a registered partnership firm instituted a suit for recovery ofrs. 29,000. 00 against the respondent-Union of India and two others i. e. the officials of the railways. Inseptember, 1959 respondent No. 3, Divisional Superintendent, Commercial, Northern Railway at Lucknow acting on behalf of respondent No. 1, viz. General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi invited tenders for the goods handling contract at Lucknow Railway Goods and Transhipment Sheds. In response to the tender enquiry, the appellant submitted its tender to the railways on 16th September, 1959 which was accepted on 15th October, 1959. The tenure of the contract was for three years from 1st November, 1959 to 31st October. 1962. The endorsement confirmed that the allotment of the contract had been sanctioned by the Divisional Superintendent with the concurrence of the Divisional Accounts Officer. On 30th October, 1959, the appellant received a communication from respondent No. 3 that the contract entered into earlier between the parties be kept in abeyance. Thereafter fresh quotations were invited by the respondents in respect of the work that was covered by the contract. The appellant while reserving its right that had accrued to it by the conclusion of the previous contract (first contract) nevertheless gave fresh quotations along with tender proforma with certain specifications. The said proforma of the agreement was neither filled up nor signed by the parties, and therefore, specifications as were with the original tender dated 25th November, 1959 had only been executed. The work continued as per the original letter of acceptance dated 19th December, 1959. The case of the appellant, however, is that on21stjuly, 1960,respondentno. 3 without just cause or right and contrary to the terms of the agreement notified to the appellant that one of the items given in the schedule of rates for handling goods traffic at Lucknow would be treated as withdrawn from the appellant s contract. On the same date, by another letter addressed to the appellant by the respondents, the entire contract was rescinded. Aggrieved by the above action of the respondents, the appellant filed a suit in view of the fact that the impugned action of the respondents was illegal and resulted into the breach of the contract between the parties and that respondent No. 1 -Union of India was liable to compensate the appellant for the wrongful action of respondents 2 and 3 who were its employees. Though by letter dated 21st July, 1960, the defendant No. 3had notified to the appellant that the contract would come to an end on 1st November, 1960, yet the notice dated 21st July, 1960 was served and by a subsequent letter dated 7th November, 1960, the contract was allowed to continue upto 8th November, 1960. The defendants availed of the services of the appellant in terms of the contract between the parties upto 8th November, 1960. The appellant also claimed compensation in respect of the items that were cancelled earlier and for compensation for the loss sufferred by it as a consequence of the cancellation of the illegal contract.

( 3 ) AS the respondents failed to pay the amount to the appellant inspite of the notice undersection 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a suit for the recovery ofrs. 29,000. 00 was filed by the appellant in this Court claiming the principal amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of institution till realisation.

( 4 ) IN the written statement, the respondents pleaded that the. Court was not vested with the jurisidiction to entertain the suit besides they also challenged that the appellant was not a registered partnership firm and further averred that the su