UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRAKASH CH SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT is the petitioner. The plaintiffs case is that a consignment consisting of 219 bags of rice was despatched from Gunupur Railway Station to the plaintiff at Cuttack through the defendant-railway. The defendant delivered 180 bags on 21-9-59 and 33 bags on 31-1-59 to the plaintiff, and the rest 6 bags have not been-delivered. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 316/- as damages The defendant contested the suit only on the ground of limitation. The suit was filed on 26-4-60 and Section 80 notice was served on 9-1-60. According to the defendant, limitation begins from 21-1-59 when the 180 bags of rice were delivered, and after giving margin for 14 months, the suit is barred under Article 31 of the Limitation Act,

(2.) THE learned S. C. C. Judge decreed the plaintiff's suit for Rs. 308/- holding that the suit is not barred by limitation. The learned Judge's finding is quoted as follows :

(3.) AS to the meaning and contents of Article 31 of the Limitation Act, which admittedly has application to the facts of this case, their Lordships of the Supreme court have recently pronounced the law in an unreported decision, Boota Mal v. Union of India (Since reported in AIR 1962 SC 1716 ). Article 31 reads as follows: description of suit. Period of Time from limitation. which period begins to run. 31. Against a carrier One year. When the for compensation goods ought to for nondelivery be delivered. of, or delay in delivering goods. On this Article there was great difference of opinion as to its meaning. Their Lordships examined the cases of different High Courts in India and laid down as follows: