MODI, J.—This first appeal is brought from the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Kota, dated 23-9-71 dismissing the plaintiffs suit for the recovery of money.

2. The plaintiff is a registered firm carrying on business at Kota. The defendant carries on business at Bhawanimandi, district Jhalawar under the name and style of Rajasthan Textile Mills. The defendant purchased between 5-5-62 and 18-9-62 asbestos cement sheets worth Rs. 78254.24 paisa and certain hardware articles worth Rs. 4936.31 P. total Rs. 83,190.55 P. and paid Rs. 72,896.63 P. on various dates leaving a balance of Rs. 10,293.92 P. When the balance was not paid, the suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted against the defendant on 6-8 63 for for the recovery of Rs. 10,203.92 P. as principal and Rs. 721/- by way of interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum total Rs 11,014.92 P. The defendant contested the suit and pleaded that Rajasthan Textile Mills is not a legal person and no suit was maintainable against it. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had agreed to allow 8 per cent discount on the amount of goods sold by it but no such discount was deducted from the bills. The defendant claimed deduction of Rs 5,045.45 P. on account of discount. The defendant also disowned its liability to pay interest. The learned District Judge after framing proper issues and on consideration of the evidence led by the parties held that the defendant was entitled to discount of 5 per cent from the amount of the bills. He further held that the plaintiff was not entitled to get any interest on the amount claimed by him. He dismissed the suit placing reliance on a decision of D vision Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Modi Vanaspati Manufacturing Co. vs. Katihar Jute Mills (P.) Ltd.(l) on the ground that the defendant Rajasthan Textile Mills is not a corporate body and consequently it can neither sue nor be sued. Hence this appeal by the plaintiff.

3. There is no controversy that Rajasthan Textile Mills is an undertaking owned by Satlaj Cotton Mills Ltd , Amritsar, a limited company functioning under the Companies Act. Rajasthan Textile Mills as such is neither a partnership-firm nor a limited company registered under the Companies Act. It is Satlaj Cotton Mills Ltd. which carries on its business at Bhawanimandi in the name and style of Rajasthan Textile Mills, that is, in the name or style other than its own. It is further not in dispute that the transactions were entered into by the plaintiff with Rajasthan Textile Mills. The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is that since the proprietor, namely, Satlaj Cotton Mills Ltd. carried on its business in the name of Rajasthan Textile Mills, the suit in the business name of the company is competent. He, however, conceded and rightly that Rajasthan Textile Mills is not a legal entity or a juristic person and unless the provisions contained in O. 30, R. 10 C.P.C. are availed of as applicable, the present suit was not maintainable. O. 30, R. 10 CPC reads as under—

"O.30. r.10—Any person carrying on business in a name or style other than his own name may be sued in such name or style as if it were a firm name; and, so far as the nature of the case will permit, all rules under this Order shall apply."

R.10 enables a person to sue another in the assumed name. The underlying principle appears to be to facilitate suits against those who carry on business in the name other than their own. It is common experience that the business is carried on from one part of the world to another through post and goods are supplied on orders on credit. The person residing at distant places and supplying goods on credit cannot be expected to know the names of the persons or the Corporation carrying on the business in the firm name which ordered the goods. It is to facilitate commercial transactions that O. 30, r. 10 was enacted.

4. The dispute which arises in this case is whether O. 30, r. 10 applies to a company carry

Click Here to Read the rest of this document