SHINGHAL, J.—It is not disputed that the plaintiff was a partnership firm A consignment which is said to have been purchased by it and was deliverable at Alwar, was lost in transit. Pleading that the Western Railway was responsible for the loss, the plaintiff raised the suit against the Union of India on December 3, 1955 through Mohanlal Lohia who signed the plaint as a partner and manager of the firm. The claim was denied by the defendant and a number of issues were framed for trial., It will be sufficient to say that the trial court took the view that the names of three partners, Kunj Bihari Lal, Shyam Bihari Lal and Mansingh were not included in the Register of Firms and the suit was not maintainable under sec. 69(2) of the Partnership Act. On appeal, the learned District Judge took a similar view in his judgment dated December 19, 1961 and this is why the plaintiff has preferred the present second appeal.

2. The names of the partners of the plaintiff firm were not disclosed in the plaint or until the framing of the issues. An application was therefore made by the defendant under Order 30 rule 2 C.P.C. on March 24, 1953, before the closure of the plaintiffs evidence, praying that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document