( 1 ) THE plaintiff, a partnership firm, sues the defendant, a nationalised bank and successor-in-interest of a banking company, for the recovery of Rs. 2,19,411. 00, being the balance of the value of the goods belonging to the plaintiff which were in the possession of the defendant at the end of August, 1947 in the territories now forming part of Pakistan, on the allegations that the plaintiff opened with the Jahania office of the erstwhile Punjab National Bank Limited, a cash credit account in 1946 with a limit of Rs- 12,00,000. 00 and by way of security for the loan proposed to be advanced, the plaintiff pledged with the said bank stocks consisting of Kappas, cotton seeds, cotton seed eakes and cotton seed oil etc. According to the plaintiff, the cash credit agreement entered into between the parties on October 23, 1946, inter alia, provided that the goods pledged would remain in the exclusive possession and under the exclusive control of the bank; that a margin of 20 to 30 per cent. in favour of the bank would always be maintained; and that the, plaintiff would insure the stock against all risks and if the plaintiff made default, the bank would get the necessary insurance effected to the debit of the plaintiff s account with it. It is further alleged that as a result of the disturbances in the then West Punjab in March, 1947, the Bank called upon the plaintiff to get the stock insured against riot and civil commotion on which the plaintiff insured the said goods in the sum of Rs. 2,80,000. 00 with Lloyds of London for one year from May 5, 1947 to May 5, 1948; that the account was operated by the plaintiff until August 21, 1947 when the value of the stock according to the figures given in the stock report of the bank s godown keeper and counter-signed by its manager stood at Rupees 2,16,302. 00 although the actual value of the stock would be to the order of Rs. 2,40,000. 00; that on account of further production, the value of the stock rose to Rs. 2,58,000. 00; that notwithstanding the responsibility of the bank to take due care of the pledged goods, the bank never sent any information to the plaintiff as to the conditions at Jahania although the bank had been functioning in Multan district throughout the material period and was aware of the whereabouts of the plaintiff firm and of its principal partners; that in 1949, the plaintiff came to know that the bank had given credit to the plaintiff in the sum of Rs. 38,589. 00 on account of the sale proceeds of the part of the pledged goods but the bank gave no information to the plaintiff as to what had happened to the rest of the goods; that the plaintiff, however, learnt some time in 1966 that the bank was claiming that the goods pledged with it other than the stock sold had been plundered or destroyed by the rioters in the course of the riots as a sequel to the partition of the country in August, 1947; that the plaintiff informed the insurers who expressed their inability to accept any liability and sought from the plaintiff an explanation as to why there had been a delay of 1\ years in reporting the loss; that on this, the plaintiff sent a communication to the bank at its Delhi office asking for its explanation as to the circumstances in which no claim had been filed with the insurers and requiring the bank to establish that the goods had been actually looted and claiming that the bank would be liable to the plaintiff for the loss. The suit was, however, filed against the banking company but on the nationalisation of the aforesaid bank, its successors-in-interest, the nationalised bank was substituted for it as the defendant. Lloyds of London were originally impleaded as defendant No. . in the suit but the suit against them was eventually withdrawn.

( 2 ) THE suit was contested by the bank. By way of preliminary objection, it was alleged that the plaint in its present form could not proceed to trial; that the suit having been dismissed against the insurers, their