Section 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, which specifies the courts where suits for compensation against the railway administration can be instituted, overrides the general provisions of section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Headnote:
RAILWAYS ACT - SECTION 80 - JURISDICTION - SUIT FOR COMPENSATION AGAINST RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION - SPECIAL PROVISION OVERRIDING GENERAL PROVISION - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, ORDER 1, RULE 3 - JOINDER OF DEFENDANTS - NO EFFECT ON JURISDICTION - SECTION 20(B) AND (C) - LEAVE OF COURT AND PART OF CAUSE OF ACTION - NO HELP TO PLAINTIFFS - SECTION 80 OF RAILWAYS ACT OVERRIDES SECTION 20 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE.
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs, grain dealers, entered into a contract with defendant No. 3 to purchase 220 bags of Gram-Dal. Defendant No. 3 consigned 155 bags to the railways for carriage to plaintiffs at Dhulia. Plaintiffs paid the price to defendant No. 3 at Gondia and received the railway receipt. Upon delivery at Dhulia, 16 bags were missing and 14 bags were tampered with, resulting in a shortage of 9.05 quintals. Plaintiffs filed a suit against defendants Nos. 1(A) and 1(B) (railway administration) and defendant No. 3 for damages. The trial court found that the plaintiffs had proved their case and decreed the claim for Rs. 3,632.25 against the railway administration alone. The lower appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the railway administration. The railway administration filed a second appeal, contending that the trial court had no jurisdiction to try the suit.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the trial court had no jurisdiction to try the suit against the railway administration. The court found that section 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, which specifies the courts where suits for compensation against the railway administration can be instituted, overrides the general provisions of section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court further held that the plaintiffs' contention that part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the trial court, and that they had obtained leave of the court under section 20(b) of the Civil Procedure Code, did not help them, as section 80 of the Indian Railways Act overrides section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to try the suit against the railway administration. 2. Whether section 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 overrides the general provisions of section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the trial court had no jurisdiction to try the suit against the railway administration because section 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, which specifies the courts where suits for compensation against the railway administration can be instituted, overrides the general provisions of section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code. 2. The court held that section 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 overrides the general provisions of section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code because section 80 is a special provision that deals specifically with suits for compensation against the railway administration, while section 20 is a general provision that applies to all civil suits.
Final Decision: The court allowed the second appeal, set aside the decrees passed by the courts below, and directed the trial court to return the plaint to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper court.

JUDGMENT - Joshi,V.V. J.-In this Second Appeal the original defendants Nos. 1(A) and 1(B) have challenged the decree of the Courts below directing the appellants to pay an amount of Rs. 3,632.25 and proportionate costs of the suit with interest at 6 per cent per annum on Rs. 36,000 from the date of suit till realisation, to the plaintiffs the present respondents Nos. 1 and 2 as damages caused to the plaintiffs by the appellant-railways as carriers on account of non-delivery and short delivery of the goods con-signed to the railways for carriage. The main contention of the appellants in this second appeal is that the trial Court at Gondia had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as against the appellants.

2. The plaintiffs who are real brothers and grain dealers at Gondia, carry on grain business in the name and style “Mathuradas Kaluram Mundra” at Gondia in Bhandara District, On 2-6-1966 respondent No. 3 M/s Nathuram Chandulal, General Merchants at Katabhanji in Orissa State, entered into a contract with the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to sell 220 bags of Gram-DaL But of these 220 bags, 100 bags were to be sold at Rs. 125 per bag weighing 100 kgs. each and the remaining 120 bags each weighing 100 kgs. were to be sold at Rs. 122 per bag. These bags were to be loaded by respondent No. 3 M/s Nathuram Chandulal at his own expenses at Katabhanji with the railways for carrying and delivering the same to the plaintiff at Dhulia. The respondent No. 3 M /s Nathuram Chandulal was to present the railway receipt to the plaintiffs at Gondia and to receive payment at Gondia for the quantity of goods loaded at Katabhanji railway station. Accordingly on 4-6-1966 one Rameshwar on behalf of respondent No. 3 came to Gondia at plaintiffs' shop and inform-€dj the plaintiffs that out of the contracted 220 bags of Gram-Dai the respondent No. 3 had loaded 155 bags at Katabhanji railway station to be carried and delivered to the plaintiffs at Dhulia railway station. Rameshwar had brought the railway receipt for the consignment and delivering the same he received on behalf of respondent No. 3 from the plaintiffs, the price thereof i. e. Rs. 19,415.25. Under the railway receipt the respondent No. 3 was the consignor and he had consigned the consignment to self. This railway receipt was endorsed in favour of the plaintiffs by Rameshwar at Gondia after the payment was received. Accordingly the plaintiffs became the owners and consignees of the consignment. The plaintiffs despatched the railway receipt to their commission agent Bherumal Nandkishor at Dhulia to accept the consignment on behalf of the plaintiffs. On or about 25-6-1966 the plaintiffs received an intimation that though the railway receipt was containing 155 bags, the wagon carrying the consignment actually contained 139 bags and 16 bags of gram-dal were short and were not there in the consignment. Out of the 139 bags which were received at Dhulia, 14 bags were loose and cut. The plaintiffs got open delivery on 25-6-1966 and the railway authorities at Dhulia issued short delivery certificate after actually ascertaining and re-weighing the bags. According to this certificate 16 bags were missing and out of 139 bags, 14 bags were found tampered with and cut and the quantity of gram-dal delivered in these 14 bags was only 4.95 quintals and thus there was shortage of 9,05 quintal's. The plaintiffs claimed that they suffered a total loss of Rs, 3,758, Rs, 3,632.25 being the price of 16 bags non-delivered and short delivery of 9.05 quintals In the 14 bags-which were tampered with, Rs. 100,75 were claimed as expenditure Incurred by the plaintiffs and Rs. 25 as notice and posting charges. These were the main allegations in the plaint.

3. So far as the question of jurisdiction and cause of action is concerned, paras. 5 and 6 of the plaint are very material, and relevant portions thereof are extracted below:

“5. It Appeared that the defendant No. 2 In conspiracy with the servants under the defendant No. 1(A)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document