Judgment 1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiff alleged that a consignment of 343 tins of mustard oil was despatched from Hathras Killa on the Northern Railway for being delivered1 at Kodarma Railway Station on the Eastern Railway, At the time of delivery the plaintiff found that 93 tins of mustard oil were damaged. Out of these 93 tins, 25 tins were found entirely empty and 68 tins were found leaking. The plaintiff, therefore, brought this suit for recovery of damages against the railway authorities for loss of the consignment, alleging that it was due to the negligence and misconduct on the part of the railway administration. The suit was contested by the defendants on the ground that at the time the tins were handed to the charge of the railway authorities at Hathras Killa, the tins were in a defective condition and the soldering was weak and so Section 74-A of the Railways Act applied to the case. It was also contended on behalf of the defendant that there was no negligence or misconduct proved on the part of the railway administration or any of its servants. The trial Court granted a decree to the plaintiff, but in appeal the lower appellate Court has reversed the decree and dismissed the suit. 2. On behalf Of the plaintiff-appellant the main argument advanced is that Section 74-A of the Railways Act has no application to the case. It was submitted that the finding of the lower appellate Court that there was defective or improper packing recorded by the sender or his agent in the forwarding note is vitiated in law because there was no proper evidence to support that finding. Learned Counsel for the appellant took us through the Judgment of the lower appellate Court and also through the Judgment of the trial Court on this point. But having perused those judgments we are not satisfied that there is any error of law which vitiates the finding of the lower appellate Court that there was defective or improper packing of the tins which was recorded by the sender or by his agent in the forwarding note. The finding of the lower appellate Court on this point is a finding on a question of fact and, in our opinion, this finding of the lower appellate Court is not vitiated by any error of law. 3. The finding of the lower appellate Court on this point is a finding on a question of fact and, in our opinion, this finding of the lower appellate Court is not vitiated by any error of law. 3. It was also submitted on behalf of the appellant that the finding of the lower appellate Court that there was no negligence or misconduct on the part of the railway administration or its servants is also erroneous in law. Having perused the reasons given by the lower appellate Court for the "finding and having also read the material portion of the judgment we are satisfied that there is no substance in this argument. On the contrary the finding of the lower appellate Court is supported by proper evidence, and the finding being a finding on a question of fact cannot be disturbed by the High Court in second appeal. 4. Another point was taken on behalf of the appellant, namely that there was a decree given by the trial Court against the Northern Railway, and in the lower appellate Court the Northern Railway was not made a party and so the lower appellate Court had no jurisdiction to set aside the decree of the trial Court so far as the Northern Railway was concerned. There is a petition filed in this Court on behalf of the appellant for making the General Manager of the Northern Railway as a party respondent. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties on this point we think that this application must be allowed and the General Manager of the Northern Railway must be made a party to this appeal. With regard to the argument of learned Counsel for the appellant that the decree could not be set aside by the lower appellate Court as against the Northern Railway, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that each railway administration had a separate juristic personality and the non-impleading of the Northern Railway before the lower appellate Court was a material circumstance, and in the absence of the Northern Railway the lower appellate Court could not have set aside the decree obtained by the appellant as against the Northern Railway. We do not think there is any substance in this argument. We do not think there is any substance in this argument. There is a common defence of both the railway administrations, namely, the Northern Railway and the Eastern Railway, on the basis of Section 74-A of the Railways Act In these circumstances we think that the provisions of Order 41, Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure, are applicable, and even in the absence of the Northern Railway it was open to the lower appellate Court to set aside the decree of the trial Court under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure, because the decree was set aside by the lower appellate Court on a ground common to both the railway administrations. We, therefore, hold that the decree of the lower appellate Court is not vitiated by any error of law. 5. For these reasons we think that there is no merit in this second appeal which is accordingly dismissed.