JHABARMAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a first appeal by the plaintiff Jhabarmal against a judgment and decree of the learned District judge, Ganga-nagar, dated the 8th December, 1950, in a suit for compensation for non-delivery of certain goods.

(2.) THE plaintiff is the proprietor and karta of a joint Hindu family firm styled Sheokaran Das Shriniwas, and carried on business in Kustia in East Bengal (now in Pakistan) and also a Calcutta. THE case set forth in the plaint was that on 3.3.1947 the Bikaner Industrial Corporation Ltd., Ganga-nagar, entrusted 50 drums of Mustard oil weighing 273 maunds to the Bikaner Sate Railway at the Ganganagar railway station for carriage to Kustia, and obtained a Railway Receipt No. 478737 with self as the consignee thereof. One Jugal Kishore, an employee of the Bikaner Industrial Corporation, endorsed the Railway Receipt in favour of the plaintiff's firm, and it was, therefore, alleged that the plaintiff was entitled to receive delivery of the goods represented by the railway receipt. THE plaintiff's case was that he had failed to get delivery of the goods in question at the destination station and consequently he brought the present suit against the State Council, Bikaner, representing the Bikaner State, as it then was, who owned that Railway for recovery of compensation amounting to Rs, 25,505/- which comprised a sum of Rs. 23,205/- as cost of 273 maunds of mustard oil at the rate of Rs. 85/- per maund and a sum of Rs. 800/- as price of the 50 drums which contained the oil and a sum of Rs. 1500/- by way of interest at the rate of 6% per annum. THE plaintiff impleaded the Bikaner Industrial Corporation Ltd. as a pro forma defendant. It may be pointed out that the goods had to travel over three other railway systems viz., the North Western, the East Punjab and the East Bengal Railways in order to reach the destination, but the plaintiff did not implead them as defendants. THE plaintiff pleaded to have given a notice to the Manager, Bikaner State Railway under sec. 77 of the Railways Act as applicable to the Bikaner State and further to have given a notice to the State Council under sec. 72 of the Bikaner Civil Procedure Code (which Corresponds with sec. 80 of the Indian Code of Civil Procedure) THE defendant, State Council Bikaner, admitted the receipt of the consignment at the Ganganagar Railway Station but resisted the suit on a number of grounds. THE main points raised in defence were that the Bikaner State Railway had made over the goods covered by the railway receipt to the East Punjab Railway in a safe and sound condition at Bhatinda and was, therefore, absolved of all responsibility in respect therefore, and it denied having received any notice under sec. 77 of the Railways Act and further it refused to admit that the plaintiff was the endorsee of the railway receipt and had any right to bring the suit It was further contended that the North Western, the East Punjab and the East Bengal Railways were necessary parties to the suit and that the suit was barred by limitation. It is obvious, from what has been stated above, that neither of the parties pleaded that the goods had been lost and this factor is not without significance.