UNION OF INDIA Vs. MOHAMMAD YATTEM ABDUL SATTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the Union of India as owner of the Eastern Railway. It is directed against a decree, passed on remand, by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge on the 17th of February, 1961, in Money Appeal No. 48/26 of 1959.

(2.) This application arises under the following circumstances: Money Suit No. 547/11 of the 1958/59 in the Court of the Munsif 1st Court, Sasaram, was instituted by the plaintiff, claiming Rs. 966.61 nP. according to Schedule B of the plaint. The suit was instituted against the Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Calcutta, and the General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi. A joint or severable decree was prayed for as against these two Railways. It appears that, subsequently, the name of the General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi, defendant No. 2, was expunged from the record by order dated the 13th of August, 1958. We are, therefore, concerned, now, with a suit filed by the plaintiff against the Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railway. It was alleged in the plaint that one bale of goods was booked at Kanpur Central Railway Station on the 2nd of February, 1958, to be carried and delivered at Sasaram. Dire to wilful negligence and misconduct on the part of the Railway administration and their staff concerned, the consignment was not delivered until the institution of the suit. It was alleged that due to this non-delivery of the consignment, the plaintiff had suffered a loss to the extent of Rs. 966.61 nP. Other assertions in the plaint are not necessary to be repeated at this stage.

(3.) A written statement was filed, in due course, by the Union of India as owner of the Eastern Railway, stating, amongst others, that the defendant denied liability for the alleged loss of goods, as the same had been caused, under circumstances beyond control of the Railway administration. It was also asserted that the defendant had taken as much care as was necessary for a bailee for the goods in question. (4) Upon the allegations of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Judge, namely :- 1. Is the suit maintainable? 2. Are the alleged notices under Section 77 I.R. Act and 80, C. P. C. legal and valid and have they been served validly? 3. Is the Eastern Railway Administration liable? 4. Can the plaintiff sue? 5. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled?