J.P. Jain, J. - (1.) THE order dated 27 -11 -1973 of the Additional District Judge, Jalore, has given rise to this revision application. Facts leading to the case are these.
(2.) FIRM Khetawat Industries Marwar Bhinmal District Jalore, a dissolved firm, through its three partners instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 10,882/93 against Union of India and four others on account of the non -delivery of the goods in the court of Additional District Judge, Jalore. The plaintiff's case was that a consignment consisting of 175 bags of oil cakes were despatched to Bombay Port Trust G. (Grain Depot) Siding Station on 2.8.68 The consignee of the said goods was Shamji Shivji and Co., which was later on endorsed in favour of Messrs. Louis Drafts & Co., Kamani Chambers, Bombay. The consignee made an inquiry from Station Master of the destination station about the goods and he also left the railway receipt with him from 20.8.68 to 12.11.68, but the Station Master was unable to deliver the goods and he gave the railway receipt back to him on 13 -11 -68. It was also alleged that after some time the Railway Administration called upon the consignee to take delivery of 165 bags of oil cakes and to pay demurrage. This condition was not acceptable by the consignee. These facts gave rise to this suit for recovery of damages from the Railway Administration Defendant No. 2 has been described as General Manager Northern Railway, Delhi. Defendant No. 3 has been named as Chief Commercial Superintendent (Claims), Northern Railway. Jodhpur. Defendant No. 4 has been describe has General Manager Bombay Port Trust Railway, Nichol Road. Ballard Estate Bombay 1. General Manager Central Railway Bombay is the 5th defendant. The suit was resisted by all the defendants On behalf of the defendant No. 4, one Joseph Anthony, Assistant Manager Claims Bombay Port Trust Railway, Bombay filed the written statement One of the contentions raised by him, was that Bombay Port Trust Railway is a body corporate, established under Bombay Port Trust Act, 1875. According to the provisions of the Act the said Railway could sue or be sued by the Trustees of the port of Bombay. On this premise it was urged that Bombay Port Trust Railway has not been properly sued, as there is none like General Manager to represent the said railway.
(3.) THE plaintiff then submitted an amended application under Order VI Rule 17. Civil P.C. and prayed that instead of General Manager, Bombay Port Trust Railway, the trustees of the Port of Bombay, Bombay Port Trust Railway be substituted. This amendment was opposed However the trial Judge allowed the amendment by his order dated 27.11.73 and it is under challenge in this revision application.;