SUGAULI SUGAR WORKS (PRIVATE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals filed by the plaintiffs arise out of suits for recovery of different sums of money on account of non -delivery of six different consignments. Four of the suits, out of which these appeals arise, were filed by the Sugauli Sugar Works (Private) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Sugauli Sugar Works) and two of them were filed by the Motilal Padampat Sugar Mill Company (Private) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Majhaulia Sugar Works). I give below a chart showing the appeal number of this Court, the suit number out of which it arises, the name of the plaintiff, the place from where it was consigned, the place where it was consigned to, the wagon number and the amount of claim : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Appeal Suit Name of the Place Place to Wagon Amount of No. No. plaintiff. from where which No. claim. consigned. consigned. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F.A. M.S. Saugali Sugar Rs. An. -P s. 127/58 238/56 Works (P) Ltd. Sugauli Barh. 28247 9,000 0 0 F.A. M.S. do. do. (N.E.R.) (E.R.) 128/58 235/56 do. Lakhisarai 10604 9,000 0 0 F.A. M.S. do. do. (E.R.) 129/58 236/56 do. Patna Jn. 18028 24,451 10 0 F.A. M.S. do. do. (E.R.) 27761 130/58 237/56 do. Patna Ghat 18000 22,468 10 6 F.A. M.S. Padampat Sugar (E.R.) 16180 246/56 221/56. Mill Co. (P) Majhaulia do. WR22712 15,780 8 0 Ltd. (N.E.R.) 242547 F.A. M.S. do. do. 247/58 220/56 do. Bihar Sarif 14828 8,636 3 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(2.) These appeals were heard by a Bench of this Court consisting of Sahai, J. and myself, who, after hearing all the appeals fully, recorded the findings on all the points in our judgment and took the view that the plaintiffs were entitled to compensation for the loss suffered by them. The claim for quantum of compensation could not, however, be determined fry us, as the learned Subordinate Judge, who tried the suits, has not framed any issue even when the issues were recast, as to the quantum of compensation to which the plaintiffs would have been entitled in case of their success on proof of negligence or want of proper care on the part of the Railway Administration or its employees. We, therefore, framed the following issue in all the appeals: What is the amount for which the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree in each case ? Under Order XLI, Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) we sent the said issue for trial to the trial court. Our order in the previous judgment may be usefully quoted here: ...It will be open to both parties to adduce additional evidence on this issue. The Court below shall proceed - to try the issue, and shall return the evidence together with its findings thereon and the reasons therefor to this Court within three months from today. Notice of receipt of the record along with the findings must be given to the learned Advocates for both parties within a very short time of their arrival in this Court. Either party may present its memorandum of objection to any finding arrived at by the Court below within a fortnight after the receipt of the notice by it. As soon thereafter as possible, the appeals will be put up for decision as to the quantum of the decrees and thus final disposal of the appeals.

(3.) The issue aforesaid was, accordingly, tried by the trial court, which allowed the claims of the plaintiffs with dunnage charges in each case. The trial court, however, did not allow the interest claimed up to the filing of the suit nor did it allow interest pendente lite nor costs of notices, which were claimed by the plaintiffs in each case. These appeals were, therefore, placed before this Bench (as Sahai, J. had since retired).