Judgment

SUBBA RAO, J. : This appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Judicature for Punjab at Chandigarh is directed against its judgment confirming that of the Subordinate Judge. First Class, Delhi, in a suit filed by the respondent against the appellant for the recovery of compensation in respect of non-delivery of goods entrusted by the former to the latter for transit to New Delhi.

2. On 15-8-1947, India was constituted into two Dominions, India and Pakistan; and soon thereafter civil disturbances broke out in both the Dominions. The respondent and others, who were in Government employment at Quetta, found themselves caught in the disturbances and took refuge with their household effects in a government camp. The respondent collected the goods of himself and of sixteen other officers, and on 4-9-1947, booked them at Quetta Railway Station to New Delhi by a passenger train as per parcel way bill No. 317909. Under the said bill the respondent was both the consignor and consignee. The N. W. Railway (hereinafter called the Receiving Railway) ends at the Pakistan frontier and the E. P. Railway (hereinafter called the Forwarding Railway) begins from the point where the other line ends; and the first railway station at the frontier inside the Indian territory is Khem Karan, The wagon containing the goods of the respondent and others, which was duly sealed and labelled indicating its destination as New Delhi, reached Khem Karan from Kasur, Pakistan, before 1-11-1947, and the said wagon was intact and the entries in the "inward summary" tallied with the entries on the labels. Thereafter it travelled on its onward march to Amritsar and reached that place on 1-11-1947. There also the wagon was found to be intact and the label showed that it was bound to New Delhi from Quetta. On 2-11-1947, it reached Ludhiana and remained there between 2-11-1947 and 14-1-1948; and the "vehicle summary" showed that the wagon had a label showing that it was going from Lahore to some unknown destination. It is said that the said wagon arrived in the unloading shed at New Delhi on 13-2-1948, and it was unloaded on 20-2-1948, but no immediate information of the said fact was given to the respondent. Indeed, when the respondent made an anxious enquiry by his letter dated 23-2-1948, the Chief Administrative Officer informed him that necessary action would be taken and he would be addressed again on the subject. After further correspondence, on 7-6-1949, the Chief Administrative Officer wrote to the respondent to make arrangements to take delivery of packages lying at New Delhi Station, but when the respondent went there to take delivery of the goods, he was told that the goods were not traceable. On 24-7-1948, the respondent was asked to contract one Mr. Krishan Lal, Assistant Claims Inspector, and take delivery of the goods. Only a few articles, fifteen in number and weighing about 61/2 maunds, were offered to him subject to the condition of payment of Rs. 1,067-8-0 on account of freight, and the respondent refused to take delivery of them. After further correspondence, the respondent made a claim against the Forwarding Railway in a sum of Rs. 1,62,123 with interest as compensation for the non-delivery of the goods entrusted to the said Railway, and, as the demand was not complied with, he filed a suit against the Dominion of India, in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi, for recovery of the said amount.

3. The defendant raised various pleas, both technical and substantive to non-suit the plaintiff. The learned Subordinate Judge raised as many as 15 issues on the pleadings and held that the suit was within time, that the notice issued complied with the provisions of the relevant statutes, that the respondent had locus standi to file the suit and that the respondent had made out his claim only to the extent of Rs. 80,000; in the result, the suit was decreed for a sum of Rs. 80,000 with proportionate costs.

4. The appellant carried th