Das, J.

1. A very short point of law arises on this application in Revision, On 2-1-1951, the plaintiff, who is opposite party before us, booked 10 bags of betel-nut from a station called Nimtala in the suburbs of Calcutta to the Darbhanga railway station. On 27-3-1951, an open delivery of the consignment was taken which was found to have been tampered with. It was then discovered that there was a shortage of goods worth Rs. 192-8-0, On 10-4-1952, the opposite party served a notice which specifically stated that it was a combined notice under Section 77, Railways Act, and S, 80, Civil P. C., on the General Manager of the East Indian Railway administration and the General Manager of the O. T. Railway administration. No reply to the notice having been received, the opposite party instituted a suit in the Court of Small Causes at Darbhanga. He claimed a sum of Rs. 224-4-0 being the cost of the betel-nut and freight etc. Several pleas in defence were taken by the present petitioner, namely, the Union of India. We are concerned now with only one plea, namely, the plea that there was no valid notice under Section 80, Civil P. C., nor a valid notice under Section 77, Railways Act.