JUDGMENT

VENKATACHALIAH, J.:- These appeals, by certificate, preferred against the common order dated 17-6-1987 of the High Court of Calcutta in Full Bench Reference 1 of 1983 (reported in AIR 1987 Cal 311) raise a short and interesting question, of some general importance, whether the choice of the forum for the cognizance of suits envisaged in S. 80 of the Railways Act, 1890 (As substituted by S. 14 of the Indian Railways (Amendment) Act, 1961 (Act 39 of 1961)) is limited by S. 80 itself or whether provisions of S. 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and S. 18 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, as the cases may be, in regard to places of suing, are also applicable to the suits referred to in the said Section 80.

The question, in other words, is whether the said S. 80 is a complete, self-contained, exhaustive Code in regard to the place of suing respecting suits constituting a special law for such suits excluding, by necessary implication, the operation of provisions of S. 20 of the Civil P. C. 1908, and S. 18 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, stand excluded from operation. The Full Bench, however, has left open the question whether S. 80 also overrides clause 12 of the letters patent.

2. In the original proceedings from which C.A. 224 of 1988 arises, appellant instituted Money Suit No. 35 of 1978 against the Respondent in the Court of the 6th Sub-Judge at Alipore, Dist.-24 Parganas, West Bengal, seeking recovery of Rs. 13,200/ - respecting an alleged short delivery of a consignment booked with the Respondent on 24-4-1975 Ex-Ernakularn to Ranchi, a station under the South Eastern Railway Administration. Respondent contested the suit on grounds, inter alia, that having regard to the said S. 80, the Court at Alipore had no jurisdiction. The trial Court by its order 22-5-1981 having rejected this objection as to jurisdiction, Respondent preferred C.R. 2938 of 1981 under S.115 of the Civil P. C. before the High Court to have that order revised. The matter was referred to a Full Bench, culminating in the order now under appeal.

3. In C. A. 734 of 1988, appellant instituted a Suit No. 3831 of 1985 in the Court of the Small Causes, Calcutta, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,573.50 p. on account of short deliveries of two consignments booked with the Respondent on 27-4-1984 and 24-7-1984 respectively, Ex-Saugar in Central Railway to Ramkrishtopur in Eastern Railway. Similar objection as to jurisdiction having been urged, the trial Court rejected that objection and decreed the suit. This was assailed before the High Court by the Respondent. The Full Bench, by its common order, has held that the 106 trial Court had no jurisdiction and directed the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court.

4. In order that the contentions of Dr. Shankar Ghosh urged in support of these appeals are apprehended in their proper perspective, it becomes necessary to refer to and notice the legislative history of the provision. Section 14 of the Indian Railways (Amendment) Act, 1961, substituted the old S. 80 by a new provision. The old section reads:

"Section 80: Suit for compensation for injury to through booked traffic:

Notwithstanding anything in any agreement purporting to limit the liability of Railway Administration with respect to traffic while on the Railway of the another Administration, a suit for compensation for loss of the life of, or personal injury to, a passenger, or for loss, destruction or deterioration of animals or goods where the passenger was or the animals or goods were booked through over the Railways of two or more Railway Administrations, may be brought either against the Railway Administration from which the passengers obtained his pass or purchased his ticket, or to which the animals or goods were delivered by the consignor thereof, as the case may be, or against the Railway Administration on whose Railway the loss, injury, destruction or deterioration occurred."

The new S. 80 substituted