UNION OF INDIA Vs. D N MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rule has been obtained by the Union of India representing the Eastern Railway Administration against a decree made by the Small Cause Court Judge of Asansol in Small Cause Court Suit No. 123 of 1953. The following facts are now undisputed.

(2.) ON the 6th June, 1950, a consignment of silk was sent to the plaintiff at Barakar from Surat but the plaintiff did not receive the consignment and he preferred a claim for compensation and also served a notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure upon the General Manager, Eastern Railway. Thereafter on the 1st August, 1951, the Chief Commercial Manager of Eastern Railway wrote a letter to the plaintiff which runs as follows:

(3.) THEREAFTER on the 1st September, 1951, the plaintiff approached the Station Master, Barakar, with that letter for receiving payment but the payment was not made under some pretext. The plaintiff thereafter wrote several letters and served pleader's notices upon the Railway Administration without any response and eventually on the 18th July, 1953, he instituted the present suit, after having served another notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In paragraph 7 of the plaints the plaintiff states that the cause of action of this suit arose on and from the 1st September, 1951, the date on which the payment was refused by the Station Master, Barakar, even after the production of the aforesaid letter of the Chief Commercial Manager along with the railway receipt The defence of the railway administration, inter alia, was that the plaintiff's claim was barred by limitation inasmuch as the plaintiff failed to institute the suit within the period of limitation prescribed by Articles 30 and 31 of the Indian Limitation Act. The learned Small Cause Court Judge has overruled the defence and made a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against that decree the railway administration has obtained the present Rule.