B.M.Mitra, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against an order dated 18th January, 1988 ,passed by the learned Trial Judge dismissing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. An application in nature of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil procedure has been pressed for hearing by one Nandalal N. Verses & Co. Ltd. the defendant No. 2 in the suit praying that suit be permanently stayed against them or alternatively the name of the Defendant No. 2 as aforesaid be deleted from the suit register. The case of the petitioner being the Defendant No. 2 in the connected suit in substance is that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against the petitioner.
(2.) The Defendant No. 2 was and acted as an agent of the Defendant No. 1. According to the petitioner the plaintiff has stated in the plaint in most unambiguous terms that petitioner was acting as an agent of the Defendant No. 1 and as such the principal referred to in the plaint has been sued as Defendant No. 1. According to the petitioner the suit as against the petitioner, being the Defendant No. 2 is barred under the provisions of Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, in so far as the defendant No. 2 is concerned.
(3.) According to the plaintiff in paragraph 4 of the connected plaint, the contracts being referred to have been sought to be treated as part of the plaint. From the same as per the case of the plaintiff, it will appear that the Defendant No. 2 entered into the said contracts in its firm name as a purchaser. The Defendant No. 2 agreed to purchase from the plaintiff diverse quantities of goods at the rates mentioned in the contract. So according to the plaintiff the defendant No. 2 was in any event personally entitled to enforce the same and/or personally bound by it.;