ORDER 1. This revision petition arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Umaria. dismissing the suit of the plaintiff with costs on the ground that the notice Ex. P-4 issued on 7-7-1961 under section 77 of the Indian Railways Act and section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is invalid, and therefore, he set aside the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class II, Shahdol, in Civil Suit No. 159-B of 1961, wherein, the learned Judge had decreed the suit of the plaintiff for Rs. 782. 28 N. P. with costs, for the loss resulting due to the non-delivery of the bale of cloths booked from Viramgam railway station to Burhar. 2. The plaintiff applicant brought an action against the defendant-non-applicants for Rs.794.88 NP on account of the non-delivery of a bale of cloths booked to "Self" under Railway Receipt No. GB/5/79089 dated 21-2-1961 from Viramgam railway station to Burhar railway station where the delivery was to be given. After service of the notice under section 77 of the Railways Act and section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Ex. P-4 this action was initiated. 3. The defendants raised other objections and inter alia contended that the notice under section 77 of the Railways Act and section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure were invalid. 4. The learned Civil Judge framed 7 issuses in the suit, and on the basis of his findings, decreed the same for Rs. 782.28 N. P. with costs. It was also ordered that the defendants shall bear their own costs. The defendant-non-applicants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, went in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, and the only point argued before him was that the notice in question was invalid. The learned Additional District Judge, relying on the ruling S. Dutt Vs. Union of India, AIR 1961 SC 1449 came to the conclusion that the notice, Ex. P-4, was invalid for misdescription of the plaintiff, and therefore, he dismissed the suit as aforesaid. 5. Shri Dabir, the learned counsel for the applicant urged before me that the notice, Ex. P-4, was given by the applicant in the name of Kashidin Nathulal which is a joint family name and he also carries on business of the joint family in that name. 5. Shri Dabir, the learned counsel for the applicant urged before me that the notice, Ex. P-4, was given by the applicant in the name of Kashidin Nathulal which is a joint family name and he also carries on business of the joint family in that name. He added that even the Railway Receipt, Ex. P-1 was on the joint family name, and as he is a Karta of the Joint Hindu Family, he filed the suit in his own name in the capacity of the Karta of the joint Hindu family. In para 1 of the plaint, he has mentioned that he is doing business in the name of Kashidin Nathoolal. According to the learned counsel, be being the Karta of the joint Hindu family, the suit as it is, is properly framed, and there is no question of mis-identity under either name, and the trade name was merely an alias. He bas further contended that the ruling reported in S. N. Dutt Vs. Union of India (cited above) is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. In that case, the notice was given under section 80 by Messrs S. N. Dutt and Co. and the suit "as filed by S.N. Dutt as a sole proprietor of the business carried on under the name and style of S N. Dutt and Co., and further there "ere documents on record to show that S N. Dutt himself gave out as the partner of S. N. Dutt and Co., suggesting thereby that S. N. Dutt was a firm. In view of these considerations, it was held that the person giving notice was not the same who was suing, and therefore, section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not complied with. In support of his contention, he has cited State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Gundugola Venkatu Suryanarayana Garu, AIR 1965 SC 11 . 6. Shri Mukerjee, the learned counsel for the respondents on the other band, urged that though the suit is property constituted, the notice is invalid, and so the leaned Additional District Judge was right in dismissing the suit. 7. It is not in dispute that the notice, Ex. P-4, was given for Kashidin Nathulal Sunar of Burhar. The Railway Receipt, Ex P-1, is also in that name. The suit is filed by Natbulal son of Kashideen. 7. It is not in dispute that the notice, Ex. P-4, was given for Kashidin Nathulal Sunar of Burhar. The Railway Receipt, Ex P-1, is also in that name. The suit is filed by Natbulal son of Kashideen. It is also mentioned in paragraph 1 of the plaint that Nathulal applicant is doing business in the came and style of Kashideen Nathulal. Now the only question that arises for consideration is, whether the notice Ex. P-4 given by the plaintiff is invalid. 8. It is true that Order 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to a joint family firm. Such a firm, if there is any, must sue and be sued in the name of its members and is not entitled to bring a suit in its business name. Order 30 Rule 10, C. P. C., does authorise a person who is carrying on the business in the name or style other than his own name, to be sued in trade name but he cannot sue in that Dame. So, it is quite apparent that the suit framed by the plaintiff as a Karta of the Joint Hindu family is proper. 9. It is also equally clear that the provisions of section 77 of the Railways Act and section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure are imperative. The object of the notice under section 77 of the Railway Act is to inform the railways administration of the nature of the loss, etc., claimed by a person. The object of the notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is almost the same, and in addition to informing the railway administration about the nature of the claim, the person giving such a notice has also to notify his intention of tiling a suit with a view that the authority concerned may be able to reconsider its legal position to make, amends or settle the claim if so advised without litigation. 10. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court while emphasising that compliance of section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is mandatory, and a snit which does not satisfy its terms, is liable to be dismissed, have also observed that it does not, however, mean that the terms of the notice should be scrutinized In a pedantic manner or in a manner completely divorced from common sense. See Amarnath Dogra Vs. See Amarnath Dogra Vs. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 424 . 11. In The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Gundugola Venkata Suryanarayana Garu, AIR 1965 SC 11 at P. 15, Their Lordships referring to the scope, form, sufficiency of the notice and Its construction have observed in Paragraph 11 of the judgment, which it will be useful to reproduce below:- "The object of the notice under section 80 is to give to the Government or the public servant concerned an opportunity to reconsider its or his legal position and if that course is justified to make amends or settle the claim out of Court. The section is imperative and must undoubtedly be strictly construed failure to serve a notice complying with the requirements of the statute will entail dismissal of the suit. But the notice must be reasonably construed. Every venial error or defect cannot be permitted to be treated as a peg to hang a defence to defeat a just claim. In each case in considering whether the imperative provisions of the statute are complied with, the Court must face the following questions:- (1) Whether the name, description and residence of the plaintiff are given so to enable the authorities to identify the person serving the notice; (2) Whether the cause of action and the relief which the plaintiff claims are set out with sufficient particularity; (3) Whether the notice in writing has been delivered to or left at the office of the appropriate authority mentioned in the section; and (4) Whether the suit is instituted after the expiration of two months, next after notice has been served, and the plaint contains a statement that such a notice has been so delivered or left. In construing the notice the Court cannot ignore the object of the Legislature to give to the Government or the public servant concerned an opportunity to reconsider its or his legal position. If on a reasonable reading but not so as to make undue assumptions the plaintiff is shown to have given the information which the statute requires him to give, any incidental defects or errors may be ignored." 12. The notice, Ex. If on a reasonable reading but not so as to make undue assumptions the plaintiff is shown to have given the information which the statute requires him to give, any incidental defects or errors may be ignored." 12. The notice, Ex. P- 4, complies with practically all the conditions laid down by Their Lordships, except for the fact that the notice as aforesaid was issued in the name of Kashideen Natnulal and the suit was filed by Nathulal which matter I will presently discuss in the light of the ruling in S.N. Dutt. Vs. Union of India (cited above). 13. I have given my careful and anxious thought to this question and I am of the view that the above cited ruling is distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. In that case, as has been pointed out by their Lordships, S.N. Dutt was carrying on business in the name and style of S.N. Dutt and Co. and he gave a notice under section 80 of the Code in that name, though the suit was filed by him as a sole proprietor of the firm, but as observed by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in para 12 of their judgment that there were documents on record which gave an impression that S. N. Dutt and Company was firm. It was in these circumstances that Their Lordships were pleased to hold that a person giving notice was not the same as the person suing, i.e. there was a discrepancy above the identity of the person issuing the notice and the one suing, and therefore, section 80 of the Code was not complied with. 14. In the instant case, the notice was issued by Kashideen Natnulal and he sued in his own name. Nathulal's father's name is Kashideen, and it nowhere gives the impression that Kashideen Nathulal was a firm and the suit is filed by an individual and it has caused any discrepancy as to the person who gave the notice and who filed the suit. Having found no discrepancy as to the identity of the person, I am of the view that the learned Additional District Judge was wrong in applying the ruling in S.N. Dutt Vs. Union of India (cited supra) to the facts of the instant case. 15. Having found no discrepancy as to the identity of the person, I am of the view that the learned Additional District Judge was wrong in applying the ruling in S.N. Dutt Vs. Union of India (cited supra) to the facts of the instant case. 15. This revision is therefore, allowed; the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge are set aside, and that of the trial Court ate hereby affirmed Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, costs of this revision shall be borne by the parties as incurred. Counsel's fee Rs. 50, if certified.