( 1 ) THIS is plaintiffs second appeal arising out of a suit based on a tort for recovery of damages. The suit was partly decreed by the trial Court, but the first appellate Court has reversed that decree hence this further appeal by the plaintiff.

( 2 ) THE basis for claiming damages is rather unusual. The plaintiff is a cloth merchant in retail business at Satna, while defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm, carrying on wholesale business in cloth. Defendant No. 2 Cloth Merchants Association, Satna, is an association of cloth merchants, of which defendant No. 1 is a member but not the plaintiff. Plaintiff had business relations with defendant No. 1 in cash as well as on credit. There was some dispute between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 regarding payment of interest on the goods purchased on credit by the plaintiff from defendant No. 1. This led to a resolution by the Managing Committee of the Cloth Merchants Association, Satna, (defendant No. 2) on 1-1-1978, by which it was decided that members of the association would not enter into credit transactions with the plaintiff. Accordingly, such an intimation (Ex. P-6) dt. 3-1-1978 was given by the association to all its members. The plaintiff claims that such a resolution passed by the Cloth Merchants Association (defendant No. 2) is void and its consequence has been to cause business loss to the plaintiff, which amounts to Rs. 750/- at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month, up to the date of the suit and even thereafter at the same rate. The plaintiff has, therefore, claimed a declaration that the resolution dt. 1-1-1978 passed by the Cloth Merchants Association (defendant No. 2) is invalid and consequently damages amounting to Rs. 750/- up to the date of the suit and thereafter at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month.

( 3 ) THE defendants have contested the suit, denying any cause of action in plaintiff's favour for recovery of damages. It is contended that the resolution of the Cloth Merchants Association governs only the members of the Association and it was to protect the interest of the members to whom alone it was communicated for this reason. It has also been contended that the plaintiff not being a member of the Association is not bound by the resolution and has no right to challenge it. Continuance of cash transactions with the plaintiff remains unaffected. The plaintiffs allegation of suffering any actual loss has also been denied. It is also claimed that there is no right to insist on credit transactions and the seller can refuse to sell on credit to any one.

( 4 ) THE trial Court decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 500/- as damages. The defendants' first appeal to the District Court has succeeded and setting aside the trial Court's decree, the suit has been dismissed in its entirety. It has been held that no actual loss to the plaintiff has been proved and no cause of action for recovery of any damages is made out. The dismissal of the plaintiffs suit has led to this second appeal by the plaintiff.

( 5 ) THE contentions of Shri R. K. Pandey, learned Counsel for the appellant, are two, namely, (1) there is sufficient proof of actual loss to the plaintiff to sustain the claim for recovery of damages on the basis disclosed in the suit; and (2) the application dt. 28-3-1981 for amendment of the plaint to recover damages on the basis of defamation, filed in the first appellate Court, was wrongly rejected. The only question formulated at the time of admission of this appeal can at best cover the aforesaid first contention of Shri Pandey, but not the second. However leave was granted to learned counsel for the appellant, to advance the other contention as well. In reply, Shri R. N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, contended that the suit, as framed, does not disclose any cause of action for recovery of damages and, at any rate, there is no proof of actual damage to the plaintiff to furnish any basis for recovery of damages. Rejection of the application