Macnair, J C—The plaint in this case describes the plaintiff as Haji Karim Nur Muhammad firm malik Haji Karim Kachi, aged 61. His suit was dismissed in so far as the defendant Jafar is concerned for reasons into which I need not now enter. He filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Nagpur. The learned District Judge held that he was bound to follow an unreported ruling of this High Court, Seth Mardan Gopal v. Pandurang Civil Revn. No. 73 of 1928, Decided on 30th April 1928, decided by Findlay, J.C. He understood Findlay, J.C., to hold that when a suit is instituted in the name of a firm the plaint must be signed by at least two of the partners. He held chat the description in the plaint meant that the firm was suing through its owner, in spite of the fact that his own view of the law was opposed to that which he supposed to have been taken by Findlay, J. 0. He dismissed the appeal on the ground that the suit as framed was bad.

2. In appeal it is urged that the suit was properly framed. I remark that the (learned District Judge was not bound to follow a decision of this Court which had not been published in the Nagpur Law Reports, though he was bound to give most