UNION OF INDIA UOI Vs. AZIZN WIDOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two points have been raised in this revision before us, one of limitation and the other in regard to notice under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act.

(2.) A perusal of the plaint shows that the plaintiff filed this suit for damages as against the Railway on the ground that goods which had been handed over to the Railway for carriage were not delivered to the plaintiff and had been detained by the Railway. The plaint did not allege that the goods had been lost to the Railway. It appears that the goods were handed over to the Indian Railway on the 15th August 1948 on which date they were despatched from Shahzadnagar within India. When they reached Abhor inside the Indian frontier, the destination of the goods being Hyderabad Sindh, in Pakistan, a question arose whether custom duty was payable on the goods to the Indian Government. In consequence the goods were not forwarded onwards immediately by the Indian Railway, but on the 4th July 1949 the plaintiff was intimated that custom duty was not leviable and that the cheque which the plaintiff had sent to the Indian Railway in respect thereof was being returned and that the goods would be despatched from Abhor, the station inside the Indian territory, within a day or two. Thereafter a telegram was received by the plaintiff intimating that the said goods had been despatched from Abhor on the 22nd July 1949. The goods not having been delivered to the plaintiff in Hyderabad Sindh he caused enquiries to be made from the foreign Railway in Pakistan and he was intimated that the goods were never delivered by the Indian Railway to the foreign Railway at Abhor.

(3.) On 23-2-1950 the plaintiff instituted the suit against the Indian Railway. He was met with the defence that there was no notice under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act, the Railway alleging that the goods had been lost to it. It also alleged that the suit was beyond time. The Judge of the Court of Small Causes framed four issues. "(1) Is the suit time barred? (2) Was notice under Section 77 of the Railways Act necessary and given? (3) Are plaintiffs entitled to sue? and (4) What sum is due?"