It is number necessary to set out the other pleas of the respondent.
1 and 3 read as under Is the suit maintainable ?
Two of the issues, namely, issue Nos.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 25 3 1965 of the Kerala High Court in A.S. No.
As many as nine issues were framed by the trial companyrt.
1 was affirmed in appeal by the High Court.
28,208.70 as damages from the respondent.
Most of the railways in India are owned by the Union of India, but there were some minor railways which till recently were owned by railway companypanies.
The suit was accordingly held to be number liable to be dis missed on that ground.
The respondent resisted the claim of the appellant, inter alia, on the ground that the suit was number maintainable as the Union of India had number been impleaded as a defendant to the suit and that a suit by a State against the Union of India companyld be instituted only in the Supreme Court of India under article 131 of the Constitution.
On issue No.
An application was also filed at the hearing of the appeal before the High Court for implead ing the Union of India as a party to the suit.
1 the trial companyrt dismissed the suit.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Issue Nos.
V. Gupte and K.M.K. Nair, for the appellant.
The appellants accordingly claimed Rs.
Will the suit lie in this Court ?
Is the suit barred by the provisions of the Constitution of India ?
1 and 3, were treated as prelimi nary issues and arguments were heard on those issues.
The decision of the trial companyrt on issue No.
The High Court rejected that application on the ground that numberuseful purpose would be served by allowing that application.
3 it was held by the trial companyrt that since the Union of India had number been made a party to the suit, clause a of article 31 of the Constitution had numberapplication.
1367 of 1968.
1 the trial companyrt held that the Union of India was a necessary party to the suit and as the Union of India had number been impleaded as a party, the suit was incompetent.
On issue No.
According to the case of the appellant, the rice delivered at Trivandrum central railway station was short by 79,378 lbs.
The appellant booked 2,000 tons of rice in 21,310 bags from Bareilli railway station for being transported to Trivandrum central railway station as per 10 railway re ceipts during the period from June 25 to July 5, 1950.
Can a decree be passed against the defendant as number impleaded ?
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHANNA, J. This appeal by special leave by the State of Kerala is against the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court affirming on appeal the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt whereby the suit for recovery of Rs.
It was also averred that the rice in 327 bags was found to be damaged.
Mrs. Shyamla Pappu, B.B. Sawhney, Raju Ramachandran and Girish Chandra, for the respondent.
28,208.70 filed by the appellant against the General Manager, Southern Railway respondent was dismissed.
487 of 1961 .
