BISHWANATH PRASAD Vs. NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is by the plaintiff. His suit for recovery of Rs. 282.03 on account of non-delivery of one basket of betel leaves consigned from Howrah on the Eastern Railway for delivery to him at Chapra on the North Eastern Railway has been dismissed. The Small Cause Court has held in favour of the plaintiff on all the points, but one. After overruling most of the objections raised on behalf of the Railway in its written statement that court has held--

(2.) Undoubtedly, the learned Small Cause Court Judge has taken too technical a view and, to use the language of the Supreme Court in the decisions in Union of India v. Jeewan Ram (AIR 1958 SC 905); State of Madras v. C, P. Agencies (AIR 1960 SC 1309) and S. N. Dutt v. Union of India (AIR 1961 SC 1449), failed to interpret the notice sent by the plaintiff with the commonsense needed for the purpose. In Harish Chand v. Union of India (AIR 1962 All 307), a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that a suit against the railway administration cannot fail merely becausa a wrong number of the railway receipt Ss given in the notice and that would not invalidate the notice, The single Judge decision in Dominion of India v. Roop Chand (1950 All LJ 595) (supra), therefore, stands overruled by a bench decision of that very court,

(3.) Mr. P. K. Bose, learned counsel for the opposite party, has placed reliance on a single Judge decision of this court In Mohammed Farooq v. Governor General in Council (AIR 1949 Pat 93) and a bench decision in Chaturbhai Bhailalbhai v. Union of India (AIR 1961 Pat 334). In neither of these decisions the mistake in the notice was as to the number of the receipt. Therefore, they are not relevant for consideration so far the facts of this case are concerned. In the plaint the number of the railway receipt was correctly given and it cannot be said that the defendant-opposite party have been prejudiced in any way by wrong mentioning of the number of the receipt in the notice under Section 80 of the Code. The fact that the defendants-opposite party could not consider the claim of the plaintiff favourably on receipt of the notice before institution of the suit would only be relevant for the purposes of the cost. After the correct railway receipt number was given in the plaint, I would rather say that it was unfair on the part of the railway administration to have contested the suit.