GOVERDHAN BANG AND JT. FAMILY OF KANIRAM LAXMINARAYAN Vs. GOVT. OF THE UNION OF INDIA, OWNING G. I. P. AND N. S. RAILWAYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition in revision on behalf of the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the Court below dated 6 -6 -1951, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. The facts in brief are:

(2.) GOVERDHAN Bang and joint family business of Kani Ram Lakshminarayan, Plaintiffs, filed a suit for I. G. Rs. 1027/10/ - against the Government (Union of India), owning the G. I. P. and the N. S. Railways. The allegation in the plaint is that on 28 -12 -1946 Messrs. Kirpa Shankar Gangaram or their representative made over to the first defendant Railway Administration at their Wadi Bandar, parcel Booking Office, two packages (one bag pista and the other of Qulai) bearing private marks of the sender for carriage and delivery to plaintiff No. 1 at Hyderabad - Deccan Railway Station Kirpa Shankar Gangaram sent the Railway Receipt to plaintiff No. 1 with the instructions that after taking delivery of the consignment, he should deliver one bag Pista to Plaintiff No. 2. The suit consignment has not been delivered to the plaintiff No. 1 in spite of repeated demands. Hence the plaintiffs are entitled to a compensation for non -delivery of the suit consignments. Defendant No. 1 in his written statement denied that any consignment containing one bag of Pista and other of qulai was booked by Kirpa Shanker Gangaram on 28 -12 -1946 and stated that from Wadi Bandar two bags one of Karak and the other bag of Alu Buqara were booked under PWB/3614/93. The bag containing Karak was offered to the consignee who refused to take delivery, and it was, therefore, sold by auction. Apart from this some legal objections were also raised regarding the maintainability of the suit and the jurisdiction of the Court. A similar written statement was filed by plaintiff No. 2. On 19 -3 -1951, Plaintiff No. 1 put in a petition for amendment stating that due to oversight and by reason of a weak carbon being used by the staff while preparing the R. R. resulting in weak and faint impression of words, the plaintiffs have claimed one bag of Pista and one bag of Qulai instead of its actual contents of one bag of dry dates and the other bag of Alu Buqara; that for fair and just disposal of the suit, and for determining the real question in controversy, the following amendments are necessary;

(3.) THIS petition was opposed by the defendants and a reply was filed on their behalf to the effect that the plaintiffs are not entitled to an amendment as this would not only alter the cause of action and the nature of the suit, but that the plaintiffs' suit will be barred by limitation if the amendment is allowed: that it will affect the jurisdiction and that finally, it will seriously hamper the defendants Who cannot be compensated by costs.