Short Note : 1. The appellant-defendant has assailed the findings of the Courts below on the grounds (i) that since the defendant Firm was already dissolved before filing of the suit, it was necessary to give notice to all the partners under Order 30 rule 3 proviso, of the Code of Civil Procedure. (ii) the Ikrarnama Ex. P.2 has not been properly construed and it should have been held that the parties only agreed that the defendant should supply all the timber that would be cut and removed from the 2 coups and (iii) the stipulation of payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 1/- per bag was by way of penalty and the plaintiff is entitled to receive only the loss sustained by him. As the plaintiff has not proved any loss occasioned due to failure of the defendant to supply the requisite quantity of timber, the plaintiff is not entitled to any claim of compensation. Held : It is true that it has been pleaded by the defendant that the defendant-Firm was dissolved before filing of the suit. Proviso to rule 3 of Order 30 requires the Court to issue notice of the suit to all the partners in case the partnership has been dissolved before filing of the suit. However, Order 30 rule 1 enables plaintiff to file a suit against a firm in the name of the firm without impleading all the partners in case the cause of action arose before the dissolution of the firm. Here, the defendant has not pleaded when the Firm was dissolved. However, Bansgopal (DW.4) claims that the Firm was dissolved in July 1964, but the cause of action for the suit arose on 30-6-1964 for the Parharia coup and as such, the suit as framed was proper. The learned appellate Judge has observed that in spite of notice dated 6-1-1962 given by the plaintiff to the defendant to give the particulars of the names and addresses of the partners, the defendant has failed to supply the particulars hence he cannot be permitted to raise the objection that notice of the suit should have been given to all the partners. The contention of the appellant in this regard therefore fails. On reading the Ikrarnama Ex. P. 2, I do not find that any mistake or error was committed by the Courts below in construing this document. The contention of the appellant in this regard therefore fails. On reading the Ikrarnama Ex. P. 2, I do not find that any mistake or error was committed by the Courts below in construing this document. The language of the document is very clear. It mentions that the defendant was required to supply minimum quantity of timber so that the plaintiff would be able to prepare 4000 bags of charcoal. However, shortage of 100 to 200 bags would be of no avail. In the Ikrarnama it is nowhere stipulated that only so much quantity of timber that would be cut and removed from these 2 coups would have to be supplied and nothing more. There is a finding by the learned appellate Judge that besides the timber supplied to the plaintiff, the defendant had collected much more timber which was lying in the coup. Besides, the defendant being a forest contractor, he was to maintain accounts of the timber cut and removed from the coups and to submit accounts with the forest authorities. No documents have been produced by the defendant to show the quantity of timber extracted by him from these coups. As there was stipulation for supply of minimum quantity, that is why there was stipulation for payment of compensation. Otherwise there was no necessity for such a clause. It is true that for breach of stipulation by way of penalty Court is not bound to award compensation when no legal injury has resulted and the plaintiff can only get reasonable compensation for the loss sustained by him. But in the present case the Courts below have found that the stipulation for compensation at the rate of Re. 1 per bag was not by way of penalty but it was an ascertained sum by the parties, taking into account the cost of preparing charcoal including transportation charges. Bansgopal has admitted that the plaintiff had to get persons from Rajasthan who were specialised in preparing charcoal and for that purpose the plaintiff incurred expenses. The Courts below have found the compensation of Re. 1/- per bag to be reasonable compensation looking to the facts and circumstances of the case Appeal dismissed.