B. D. GUPTA, J. :- The following question has been referred for being answered :-

"Whether a limited company falls within the meaning of the expression 'person' as used in R. 10 of Order 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure?"

The circumstances in which this question arose have been set forward in the order of reference dated the 17th of August, 1967, passed by a Division Bench of which I was member, but may again be briefly summarised as follows :

2. Murli Dhar Verma, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents to this appeal, instituted the suit giving rise to this appeal for recovery of money as damages and interest. The sole defendant to the suit, as originally filed, was described as follow :-

"Rajendra Prasad Oil Mills, Kanpur, through the Director Bishan Dayal, son of Lala Kishori Lal......"

As a result of an application for amendment, which was allowed, the description of the defendant was modified as follows :-

"Rajendra Prasad Oil Mills, Kanpur, through -

(1) Bishan Dayal, son of L. Kishori Lal,

(2) Rameshwar Prasad, son of Lala Kishori Lal, and

(3) Sunder Lal, son of L. Ram Bilas. . . . . Directors of the said Mills."

Only one written statement was filed, which, according to the heading, was the written statement of Rameshwar Prasad. At the very beginning thereof stands recorded what has been described therein as the preliminary objection that "Rajendra Prasad Oil Mills, Kanpur, belonged to N. K. Industries Ltd., Kanpur, a limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, of which Lal Rameshwar Prasad was the Managing Director, and the frame of the suit was bad as it was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. This objection gave rise to the first issue which was as follows :-

"Has the suit been badly framed?" The learned Civil Judge took the view that the suit was not badly framed and after recording his findings on the other issues, which related to the merits of the controversy between the parties, decreed the suit for Rs. 23,743/1/- "against the defendant" together with proportionate costs and pendente lite and future interest.

2A. "Rajendra Prasad Oil Mills" and Rameshwar Prasad thereupon filed this first appeal praying that the decree of the court below be set aside and plaintiff's suit be dismissed. When the appeal came up for hearing the first contention raised by Mr. Jagdish Swaroop for the appellants was that no suit could be filed against "Rajendra Prasad Oil Mills" by reason of the fact that "Rajendra Prasad Oil Mills" was not a legal entity. Keeping in view the arguments raised in support of the above contention the Bench framed the question which is before us.

2B. Rule 10 of Order 30 C. P. C. runs as follows :-

"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."

There has been no controversy that "Rajendra Prasad Oil Mills" was an undertaking owned by Messrs. N. K. Industries, a limited company functioning under the Indian Companies Act. The learned Civil Judge appears to have relied on the provision quoted above in support of his view that since "Rajendra Prasad Oil Mills" had entered into the disputed contract with Murli Dhar Varma and all dealings relating to the said contract had taken place between Murli Dhar Varma and "Rajendra Prasad Oil Mills" there was no legal bar against the plaintiff instituting the suit against "Rajendra Prasad Oil Mills."

The contention on behalf of the appellants, however, is that on a correct interpretation of the provisions contained in Rule 10 of Order 30 C. P. C. the case of a limited company must be excluded from its purview and that notwithstanding that the fact that such a company may be carrying on business in a name or style other than its own, recourse cannot be had to the provisions contained in the aforesaid rule with the result that, in view of the fact that "Rajendra Prasad Oil