JAGAT NARAYAN, C.J.—This is a plaintiffs special appeal against the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in second appeal dismissing its suit for the recovery of compensation which was decreed by the trial court and the first appellate court.

2. The facts which were taken to have been proved by the first appellate court and which are binding in this special appeal are these. There was a firm Doongar-mal Mohanlal at village Dholipal in Ganganagar district, the proprietor of which was Mohanlal. Ridhkaran was the Munim of that firm. He was sent to Kesinga, (District Kalihandi, Orissa) to sell gram. After selling the gram he sent the sale proceeds to the said firm by post. On 18-7-57 he sent currency notes for Rs. 2,500/-by a registered insured parcel. The parcel was contained in a cloth cover on which it was written both in figures and words that it was insured for Rs. 2,500. During transit between Kesinga and Ganganagar the parcel was tampered with and currency notes far Rs. 1,000 were removed from it. At the same time the amount of Rs. 2500 written in words and figures was altered to Rs. 1,500. In the records of Kesinga Post Office the parcel was shown as having been insured for Rs. 2,500. The same amount was written on the postal receipt given to Ridhkaran. But in the records of Ganganagar and Dholipal Post Offices the amount for which this parcel was shown to have been insured was Rs. 1,500 only. In the acknowledgment receipt which was signed by Mohanlal when the insured parcel was delivered to him the amount of Rs. 1500 only was written as the sum for which the parcel was insured. On 1-8-57 Ridhkaran came to Dholipal and told Mohanlal that he had sent Rs. 2,500 and had insured the parcel for the same amount. It was then that Mohanlal learnt that the parcel had been tampered with and currency notes for Rs. 1,000 were removed. On 3-9-57 Mohanlal transferred his claim to the plaintiff firm Mohanlal Ramchandra of Ganganagar which brought the present suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,040, out of which the sum of Rs. 40 was claimed as interest.

3. The Union of India contested the suit by filling a written statement which was signed and verified by Shri Narula, Superintendent of Post Offices, North Rajasthan. The defendant denied the material allegations made in the plaint. The trial court decreed the suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,000. The appeal of the Union of India to the District Judge, Ganganagar, was dismissed. A second appeal was then filed on behalf of the Union of India in the High Court.

4. The memorandum of appeal was signed and presented by Shri Rajnarain, who was then Assistant Government Advocate in the High Court of Rajasthan. Along with this memorandum of appeal Shri Rajnarain filed a Vakalatnama signed by Shri Narula. Shri Narula authorised Shri Rajnarain to act as well as to plead by this Vakalatnama.

5. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the plaintiff appellant that the appeal was incompetent as the memorandum of appeal had been presented by Shri Raj Narain, who had not been duly authorised to act on behalf of the Union of India. This preliminary objection was overruled by the learned Single Judge. The first contention on behalf of the appellant before us is that the preliminary objection was erroneously rejected by the learned Single Judge. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied that this contention must be upheld.

6. Shri Raj Narain is now the Additional Advocate General of the State of Rajasthan and he appeared on behalf of the Union of India before us. He relied on all the arguments advanced by the learned Single Judge in support of his finding and advanced some fresh arguments also. We shall deal with all of them.

7. Firstly, he has relied on S. R. O. (Statutory Rules and Orders) No. 3920 dated 5.12-57 of the Government of India by which the Government Advocate of the Rajasthan High Court were appointed to be Government Pleaders for the purposes of O. 27 r. 8 B. C. P.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document