GAJADHAR SHAW Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by the plaintiff Gajadbar Shaw for revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, of an order passed by a Small cause court Judge of Howrah, dismissing a suit for compensation against the B. N. Rly. for non -delivery of a part of the goods consigned by him. It appears that on 10 -6 -1950 the plaintiff consigned from Ghatsila 18 tons 10 cwt. of scrap iron which was despatched in one wagon and reached the destination, namely, Saliinar on 3 -7 -1950. On weighment on route at Kharagpore the goods were found to weigh 18 tons 10 cwt. On arrival at the destination on 3 -7 -1950 when delivery was taken the goods were found to weigh 13 tons only, so that there was a short delivery of 6 tons, 10 cwt. The plaintiff asked for compensation for this short delivery. The suit was first instituted in the Small Cause Court at Sealdah on 4 -8 -1951, hut on 30 -1 -1952, on the prayer of the plaintiff himself, after hearing the lawyer of the parties the. Senldah court directed the plaint to be returned for presentation before the proper court. The plaint was filed again before the Small Cause Court Judge at Howrah on 21 -2 -1952. The learned Small Cause Court Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit simply on the ground of limitation after having found that there was undoubtedly a short delivery to the extent of 6 tons, 10 cwts.

(2.) THE only question, therefore, for decision now is whether the suit was barred by limitation.

(3.) THE first line of case begins with Jugal Kishore v. G. I. P. Rly. Co. ILR 45 All 43: (AIR 1923 All 22(2)) (A). It is a case in which the plaintiff made over on 28 -8 -1918, certain bales of cloth to a railway company at Rombay for transmission to Chunar and as the goods did not arrive at Chunar, the plaintiff began to make inquiries about them both from the railway concerned and front the East Indian Railway company, to whose line the goods would in the ordinary course of business have been transferred at a certain function, and for considerably over a year the Plaintiff was put off by various statements on the part of the railway companies to the effect that the matter was being inquired into, but ultimately he instituted a suit for damages on 31 -3 -1920. Their Lordships held that Art, 31 fixes one year from the date when the goods ought to have been delivered, and as in that case no time was fixed for the delivery of the goods, and the correspondence between the parties showed that the matter was being inquired into and that there was no refusal to deliver, up to well within a year of the suit, they were unable to hold, in the circumstances of the case, that the suit was instituted more than a year from the expiry of a reasonable time within which the goods should have been delivered. And their Lordships referred to an earlier Madras Case, viz., M. and S. M. Rly. Co. v. Bhimappa, 17 Ind Gas 419 (B).