JUDGMENT - (1) This is a revision filed by original defendant No. 1 Company against the decree directing it to pay an amount of Rs. 1,256-9-0 and professional costs to opponent No. 1 - original plaintiffs. Theplaintiffs are inion and potato merchants. On 3rd June 1952 they shipped 91 bags of onion by S. S. Jal Rajendra to Karachi on a bill of lading, The bill of lading was sent to the Habib Bank Ltd. at Karachi. According to plaintiffs, opponent No. 2 Messrs sargodha Traders were to get this bill of lading released from the bank on payment of the amount in respect of the price of the goods so shipped. Opponent No. 2 was mentioned as the notified party in the bill of lading. On 6th July 1952 the goods, it appears,arrived at karachi and defendant No. 1 petitioner, which is the Steasship Company owning S. S. Jal Rajendra delivered to opponent No. 2 (original defendant No. 2) the 91 bags of onion on 21st July 1952, on production of all documents, except the bill of lading. As the bill of lading was not produced, opponent No. 2 gave a personal security and deposited an amount of Rs. 500/- in cash with the petitioner steamship Company. According to the plaintiffs this action of the petitioner was wrongful and resulted in a loss of Rs. 1782-5-0. That is why plaintiffs filed Suit No. 1346/6822 of 1953 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay to recover an amount of Rs. 1256-9-0 costs of the suit and interest from the date of the suit till realisation.

(2) The suit was resisted by defendant No. 1 Company inter alia on the ground that plaintiffs should have made their claim against it within one month from the alleged loss. In the present case, notice was given to defendant No. 1 on 20th March 1953 and therefore, the claim was not made within the time stipulated in the bill of lading and, therefore, plaintiffs were not entitled to any amount from the petitioners. It was further contended that the property in the case had pased to defendant No. 2, and, therefore, the delivery was mad by the petitioner company properly to defendant No. 2.

(3) The trial Court came to the conclusion that the property in the suit had not passed to defenant No. 2 and petitioners action in delivering the goods to the second defondant without the production of the bill of lading was wrongful. As regards the cntention of the defendant No. 1, that plaintiffs had not made their claim within one month of the arrival of the steamer as provided in the bill of lading, reference was made to Rule 8 in Article III of the Schedule to the Carriage of Goods by sea Act (XXVI of 1925), which provides that

"any clause, covenant or agreement in a contract of carriage relieving the carrier or the ship from liability for loss or damage to or in connection with the goods arising from negligence, fault or failure in the duties and obligations provided in this article or lessening such liability otherwisethan as provided in these rules, shall be null and void and of no effect."

In view of this rule, the applicability of which does not appear to have been disputed in the trial Court, it was held that the condition of the bill of lading that no claim would be entertained unless it was made within one month from the date of arrival of the steampship was held to be null and void and as of no effect. It was, therefore, held that as plaintiffs had brought the suit within one year after the delivery of the goods to opponen No. 2 as required under Rule 6 Article III of the Act the petitioner was not discharged from liability. In view of these findings, the trial Court, as already stated, passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs against the petitioner and also against opponent No. 2 original defendant No. 2, which was ex parte in the suit.

(4) Against this decree, defendant No. 1 filed n appeal to the Full Court of the Court of Small Causes. In appeal, it appears three contentions were raised on behalf of the petitioner. In the first instance, it was contended that as the bill of lading con

Click Here to Read the rest of this document