SHRI BHAGWAN Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by the plaintiff against the order of the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court, Fatehabad, at Agra, dismissing his suit. The plaintiff brought a suit for damages, for wrongful detention of 26 baskets of bangles sent by him from Firozabad to Zamania. The delivery of the goods was not taken by the consignee. After some correspondence between the parties, the defendant railway wrote to the plaintiff on. 8 April 1936 to take delivery of the goods within 15 days from the receipt of the letter. Within this period the plaintiff sent his man to Zamania on 21 April 1936 to take delivery. On reaching there the plaintiff's man found that the goods had been sent by the railway authorities to the Lost Property Office, Howrah. The plaintiff wrote to the Chief Commercial Manager, who asked him to pay the railway freight from Zamania to Howrah and back from Tlowrah to Zamania and take delivery. The plaintiff refused to do so. He thereafter filed the present suit. The Secretary of State, against whom the suit was filed, was described in the plaint as Secretary of State for India in Council, through the Agent, E.R. Ry., Calcutta, upon whom the service of summons will be made.

(2.) The defendant contended inter alia that the suit had not been properly framed, that it was time barred "and that there was no negligence or misconduct on the part of the railway authorities at Zamania in sending the goods to the Lost Property Office, Calcutta. The learned Judge of the Small Cause Court has found that the railway authorities were negligent in sending the goods to the Lost Property Office, Calcutta, before 23 April 1936. As regards the other two pleas, he found in favour of the defendant and dismissed the suit. He framed no less than issues, out of which he disposed of only 4. The dismissal of the suit is based on the findings that the suit has not been properly famed and that it was time barred. As I regards the suit being time barred, he has relied on Art. 31, Limitation Act. Even if this Art. were applicable, the suit would not be time barred. The goods arrived Zamania on 30 December 1935, which could be the earliest date on which the goods could or ought to have been delivered. The suit was filed on 24 February 1937. As required by Section 80, Civil P.C., a notice was sent to the Secretary of State. The period of two months should be deducted from the period of limitation for the suit under Section 15, Clause (2), Limitation Act.

(3.) By deducting this two months period the suit i;5 within one year from 30th December 1935. The suit is therefore not time barred. As regards the frame of the suit there can be no doubt that the suit was filed against the Secretary of State for India in Council as it should have been. What has happened in the suit is that the summons of the suit has been served on the Agent, E.I. Railway, Calcutta. Under Order 27, Rule 4, the Government Pleader in any Court, or such other person as the Local Government may for any Court appoint in this behalf, shall be the agent of the Government for the purpose of receiving processes against the Secretary of State for India in Council issued by such Court.