(1.) On June 27, 1930, the plaintiffs as the holders for value of bills of lading for 27,398 bags of sugar loaded on a ship owned by defendants No. 1 brought this suit to recover from defendants Nos. 1 and 2 damages in respect of a short delivery of 1078 cwts., 2 quarters and 26 lbs. This short delivery is admitted. The suit was also framed in conversion in respect of certain sweepings. That claim and the issues raised thereon were abandoned at the hearing.
(2.) The pleadings as originally framed were defective on both sides, and I allowed certain amendments both of the plaint and of the points of defence in order that all the matters in dispute between the parties might be properly determined.
(3.) The ship arrived on May 4, 1929, and was completely discharged on May 8, 1929. Having regard to Art. 31 of the Indian Limitation Act, the suit against defendants No. 1 was prima facie barred,-the suit not having been brought until June 27, 1930. In order to meet this difficulty the plaintiffs pleaded in paragraph 9A of the plaint as amended that defendants No. 1 had at all material times been absent from British India, and that the suit was not barred against them by reason of Section 13 of the Indian Limitation Act. In that paragraph the plaintiffs also stated that they would, if and so far as might be necessary, contend that their claim was not barred by limitation by reason of an acknowledgment of liability contained in defendants No. 2's letter dated January 24,1930. No argument has been submitted to me upon this allegation in that paragraph.