UNION OF INDIA Vs. NAGESHWAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application by the defendant is directed against a decree passed in a Small Cause Court suit by the Small Cause Court Judge of Monghyr.

(2.) It is stated that one case of lead pencils valued at Rs. 228.05 was consigned on the 4th February, 1961, from Wadibandar Station of Bombay to Monghyr, the plaintiff opposite party's firm being the consignee. The consignment was never delivered to the plaintiff's firm. The opposite party, therefore, sent, on behalf of his firm, a combined notice under Section 77 of the Railways Act and Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Cede through Mr. Baleshwar Prasad. Pleader Monghyr, to the Union of India as owner of the Central Railways and the Eastern Railway. It was stated in that notice that the consignment was booked by Messrs. Bholaram Ranglal Jain from Bombay to Monghyf. The railway authorities could not trace the consignment. A letter (exhibit 4(a)), dated the 4th August, 1961, was sent on behalf of the Chief Commercial Superintendent of the Eastern Railway to the plaintiff's firm stating that the consignment in question was not traceable and asking it to send a copy of the railway receipt. Subsequently, another letter, dated the 22nd November, 1961, was sent on behalf of the Chief Commercial Superintendent to the same firm, asking it to send the original railway receipt so that the claim might be disposed of. It appears that the plaintiff's firm sent the original railway receipt to the railway authorities along with a letter dated the 14th December, 1961. I have seen the receipt. The name of the station from which the consignment was booked does not seem to have been mentioned in this receipt. In, any case, the railway did not take any action thereafter. On the 23rd June, 1962, the plaintiff instituted the present Small Cause Court suit, praying for a decree for Rs. 27395 against the defendant on account of the price of the case of lead pencils, which was not delivered, along with some other items. The suit has been decreed, and hence the defendant has filed the present application.

(3.) Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. P.K. Bose has raised two points. His first point is that the suit is barred by limitation. His second point is that the notice given by the petitioner on behalf of his firm under Section 77 of the Railways Act and Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code is not valid because the correct name of the station" from which the consignment was booked has not been mentioned in it. He has submitted that there are a large number of railway stations in Bombay, including one called Bombay only, and, from the fact that the opposite party mentioned in the notice that the consignment was booked from Bombay, it could not possibly be deduced that it was booked from Wadibandar. I propose to consider both these points in the order in which I have mentioned them.