Sunder Lal, J.
1. This was a suit by the plaintiff to recover moneys due to him for the printing of certain papers which the plaintiff had printed on an order given by one Chatterji for and on behalf of Mangali Prasad and Co. The plaintiff could have recovered the amount in the first instance from Mangali Prasad and Co. failing which, if Chatterji was not an agent of Mangali Prasad and Co., from Chatterji himself. Only one of these two persons was liable. If the firm of Mangali Prasad was the principal, Chatterji as agent incurred no personal responsibility and if the agency had not been made out, Chatterji himself was alone responsible. The plaintiff asked for a decree against one or other only of these two persons. He was quite content with a decree against any one of them He does not ask for a decree against Mangali Prasad and Co. and failed to get it against Chatterji. The Court below found that Chatterji's agency had ceased, that the Company was not liable and gave a decree against Chatterji. The plaint-tiff thus got what he wanted in the plaint. He does not, however, seem to have been satisfied and he appealed against Mangali Prasad and Co. The Court below has decreed the claim against the Company. I think on the plaint the decree obtained against Chatterji exhausted the plaintiff's claim under the relief. The prayer in the plaint was misconceived no doubt, but he could only get what he claimed in the plaint. I allow the application, set aside the decree he Court below and restore that of the Court. But I make no order as to costs.