JUDGMENT

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the price of work done in connection with the repairs of a tent. The only defendant to the suit is the respondent, Shiva Shankar Sahai. He pleaded that he did not give the order for the repair of the tent on his own behalf, but as the agent for the Bonaili Raj. Both Courts have dismissed the plaintiff's suit, holding that the defendant was merely agent and not personally liable. The appellont relies upon the provisions of Section 230 of the Contract Act. That section is as follows :

In the absence of any contract to that effect, an agent cannot personally enforce contracts entered into by him on behalf of his principal, nor is he personally bound by them. Such a contract shall be presumed to exist in the following cases :

"(1) where the contract is made by an agent for the sale or purchase of goods for a merchant resident abroad :

"(2) where the agent does not disclose the name of his principal :

"(3) Where the principal, though disclosed, cannot be sued.

2. The defendant in giving his evidence stated that he could not remember that he ever mentioned who were the owners of the Banaili Raj : and it is contended, therefore, on behalf of the