Suits against the administration of a Government railway are excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes under Section 32(3) of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869, and such suits are cognizable by a Court of Small Causes if they fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and are not covered by Articles (1) or (3) of the Second Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.

Headnote:
SMALL CAUSE COURT JURISDICTION - SUITS AGAINST RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION - PROVINCIAL SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT, 1887, SECTIONS 15, 16, SECOND SCHEDULE, ARTICLES (1), (3) - INDIAN RAILWAYS ACT, 1890, SECTION 77(1) - GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897, SECTION 3(2) - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, SECTION 80 - LIMITATION ACT, 1908, ARTICLE 30 - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - PRECEDENTS - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - BURDEN OF PROOF.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners filed suits in the Poona Small Cause Court against the Union of India representing one or more of the Railway Administrations for damages caused by loss or injury to goods carried by railway. The suits were dismissed by the Trial Court, and the petitioners approached the High Court in revision.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the suits were rightly entertained by the Poona Small Cause Court and that the suits were not barred by limitation.
Issues: 1. Whether the suits were rightly entertained by the Poona Small Cause Court? 2. Whether the suits were barred by limitation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the suits were rightly entertained by the Poona Small Cause Court because: a. Suits against the administration of a Government railway are excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes under Section 32(3) of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869. b. The suits fell within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Poona Small Cause Court under Section 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. c. The suits were not covered by Articles (1) or (3) of the Second Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, which exclude certain suits from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes. d. The word "act" in Article (3) of the Second Schedule means a positive and distinct act of an officer of the Government and not a mere omission. e. Precedents and the uniform practice of long standing support the filing of such suits in a Court of Small Causes. 2. The High Court held that the suits were not barred by limitation because: a. The burden was on the Railway Administration to establish that the injury to the goods had occurred more than one year before the institution of the suit. b. The Railway Administration failed to prove that the damage to the goods had been caused prior to the date when open delivery of the consignment was given.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the decree of the Trial Court dismissing the plaintiffs' suit in Civil Revision Application No. 247 of 1965 and remanded the suit to the Trial Court for giving findings on the remaining Issues and passing an appropriate decree in accordance with those findings. The High Court dismissed Civil Revision Application No. 649 of 1965.

JUDGMENT - Tarkunde, J.

1. The petitioners in these revision applications had filed suits in the Poona Small Cause Court against the Union of India representing one or more of the Railway Administrations for damages caused by loss or injury to goods carried by railway. The suits having been dismissed by the Trial Court the petitioners have approached this Court in revision. When the revision applications reached hearing before Mr. Justice Abhyankar, the learned Judge felt some doubt on whether such suits could be entertained by a Court of Small Causes. The learned Judge, therefore, referred these revision applications for the decision of a Division Bench.

2. Before dealing with these revision applications on the merits, It Is desirable to consider whether the suits were rightly entertained by the Poona Small Cause Court. The jurisdiction of the Court to try these suits was not questioned on behalf of the Union of India at the trial. To bur knowledge suits of this nature have been always entertained by Courts of Small Causes when - the suits lay within the Courts pecuniary jurisdiction.

3. Section 32 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869 provides in Sub-section (1) that no subordinate Court other than the Court of a Civil Judge, Senior Division, and no Court of Small Causes shall receive or register any suit in which the Government or any officer of the Government in his official capacity Is a party. Sub-section (3) of Section 32, however, lays down certain exceptions to this rule, Sub-section (3) says inter alia that nothing in Section 32 shall be deemed to apply to a suit against the administration of a Government railway. Consequently, the question whether the present suits were , rightly filed in the Poona Small Cause Court depends on whether they fell within the cognizance of that Court under the relevant provisions -of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.

4. Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act lays down that a Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the Second Schedule of the Act. Section "16 of the Act provides that a suit cognizable by a Court of Small Causes shall not be tried by any other Court having jurisdiction within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes. Since the suits before us lay within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Poona Small Cause Court, they could be tried only by that Court unless they fell within the Second Schedule of the Act as suits excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes.

5. Articles (1) and (3) of the Second Schedule are the only articles which can possibly cover suits filed against the Union of India in respect of loss or injury to goods entrusted to one of the Railways as a public carrier. Articles (1) to (3) of the Second Schedule read as follows:

"(1) A suit concerning any act done or purporting to be done by or by order of the Central Government, the Government Representative or the State Government;

(2) a suit concerning an act purporting to be done by any person in pursuance of a judgment or order of a Court or of a judicial officer acting in the execution of his office;

(3) a suit concerning an act or order purporting to be done or made by any other officer of the Government in his official capacity, or by a Court of Wards, or by an officer of a Court of Wards in the execution of his office."

6. A suit for compensation for loss or injury to goods entrusted to a Railway as a carrier Is essentially a suit for damages for breach of contract. This Is made clear by Section 77 (1) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, which says that the Railway Administration shall be responsible as a bailee under Sections 151, 152 and 161 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of goods carried by a railway within a period of thirty days after the termination of transit. The question Is whether such a suit for breach of contract Is covered by either Arti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis