UNION OF INDIA Vs. POTATO SUPPLIERS SYNDICATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rfevisi6ii?mises an important question relating to the interpretation1 of section 8D 6f the Indian Railways Act (referred to as the Act) about the place of suing. .

(2.) The present respondent had consigned on 30th October, 200 bags of seed potatoes ex -Simla to Sheoraphuli by parcel train. But on account of the - alleged "negligence of the concerned staff of the carrier Railways" the consignment was abnormally delayed in transit resulting in deterioration of the goods. Notice wades -section 78 -B of the Act was given to the Chief Commercial Superintendent, Eastern Railways, Calcutta. A notice under section 80 Civil Procedure Code was given to the General Manager of the same railway. A suit for recovery of Rs. 6,304.45 as damages was filed against the Union of India at Simla. Summons were issued for service upon the Union of India through the General Manager Eastern Railways, Calcutta, as requested by the plaintiff. The summons were duly served. However, no one put in appearance. When the, case was .fixed for hearing, exparte proceedings were ordered and an exparte decree; as prayed for, was passed on 30th October, 1975.

(3.) On 14tfy April 1976, an application under Order 9, rule 13 Civil Procedure Code Was made by the union of India for setting aside the exparte decree. It was contended that the cause title of the suit did not show which department of the Union of India was being impleaded. It was submitted that after perusing the plaint it was realised that though the cause of action to the, plaintiff had arisen against the Northern Railway administration as well as, the Eastern Railway administration, the requisite notices were served only on the General Manager, Eastern Railways. It was finally submitted:. "That in the absence or any summons to the Northern Railway (applicant) in regard to the filing of the suit in question, it was only on 3rd March, 1976, that this Railway Administration came to: know of the existence of the suit for the first time when it received, a letter from the Eastern Railway asking it to defendant the suit?. It was, therefore, submitted that, there was sufficient cause for non -appearance of the defendant on the date fixed for hearing.