RATNAKAR SAHU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the appellant. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff against the Union of India representing Eastern Railway and South Eastern Railway for Rs. 4560 as compensation for non-delivery of certain portion of the consignment.

(2.) THE only point in this appeal is limitation. The facts so far as material for the purpose of deciding the point are these: On June 21, 1954 the plff. hooked ten packages including one old and used iron safe and dismantled parts of machine from Ranaghat on Eastern Railway to Haridaspur on South Eastern Railway as per railway receipts Ext, 5. On July 13, 1954, 4 packages arrived at Haridaspur. Six packages did not arrive. It was found mat 4 packages were open and some iron scraps were put inside. On September 17, 1954 the plaintiff's brother is said to have informed the plaintiff that he learnt at the station that only 4 packages had reached the destination on July 13, 1954; that it was not known when the remaining six packages would arrive; that he found that the articles were lying open; that the goods booked were not inside the packets; and so he refused to take delivery. Thereafter there was correspondence between the plaintiffs and the railway authorities. Ultimately on December 16, 1954 the plaintiff gave the railway notice under Section 77 of Railways Act. On July 21/26, 1955 the railways informed the plaintiff that the matter was under enquiry. It was not until July 20, 1956 that the plaintiff filed this suit. In defence the railways totally denied the plaintiff's claim, and also pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. An issue was also raised before the trial Court whether the suit was barred by limitation.

(3.) THE trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 4560/ -. Before the trial courts the issue of limitation was not pressed by the defendants. In appeal before the lower appellate court, the defdts. took the point of limitation. On merits the learned lower appellate Court upheld the decision of the trial court but held that the suit is barred by limitation, and accordingly the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. Hence this second appeal.