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 the plaintiff maybe asked to declare in writing the names and places of residence of all the persons constituting the plain-tiff firm. Thereupon a detailed reply was made on April 17, 1953 stating that the firm was constituted in November, 1944 and was registered in April, 1950 as a partnership firm having the following partners:

(1) Narayan Das Lohia, (5) Badri Prashad and Ram Jiwan Lohia,

(2) Ram Nath Lohia, (6) Sampat Ram Lohia,

(3) Mohan Lal Lohia, (7) Madan Lal Vaishya.

(4) Kanhaiya Lal Lohia,

It was clarified that Badri Prashad withdrew before the suit transaction, while, Ram Jiwan withdrew thereafter, and that while Kanhaiya Lal died before the suit transaction, Narayan Das died in September, 1955. All the same, it was further stated that "the partnership continues with the consent of Shri Kunj Bihari Lal and Shri Sham Bihari Lal, the sons and legal representatives of Narayan Das and Shri Kansingh son and legal representative of Kanhaiyalal." It was declared that the existing" partners of the plaintiff firm were as follows:

1. Kunj Behari Lal, Shyam Behari Lai sons of Narain Das Lohiya of Toli ka Kua, Alwar.

2. Ram Nath Lohiya of Lohiyapari, Alwar.

3. Mohan Lal Lohiya near Town Hall, Alwar.

4. Man Singh Lohiya of Mohalla Shivpura, Alwar.

5. Madan Lal Vaishya of Lohiyapari, Alwar.

It was thus admitted that the above mentioned persons constituted the partnership "in their personal and individual capacity". This reply of the plaintiff was important because it had a co-relation with the provision of Order 30, rule 1 C.P.C. That rule provides that any two or more persons claiming or being liable as part-ners may sue or be sued in the name of the firm of which they were partners at the time of the accruing of the cause of action, and any party to a suit may in such case apply to the court for a statement of the names and addresses of the persons who were, at the time of the accruing of the cause of action, partners of such firm. It would thus appear that the disclosure having been made under Order 30 rule 2 C.P.C. had the purpose and effect of showing the names and the places of residence of the partners of the plaintiff firm on whose behalf the suit had been instituted, for sub-rule(3) of rule 2 of Order 30 C.P.C. makes it clear that where the names of the partners are declared under sub-rule(l), the suit shall proceed in the same manner, and the same consequence in all respects shall follow, as if they had been named as plaintiff; in the plaint.

3. When such is the position as regards the names of the persons who raised the present suit, all that remains to consider is whether the defendant was entitled to raise the bar of sec. 69(2) of the Partnership Act. That sub-section provides as follows —

"69.(2). No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract sh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document