Service of a notice under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act is not part of the plaintiff's cause of action within Section 18(a) of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882.

( 1 ) THE facts giving rise to the reference are as follows: 10 different suits were instituted in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, for recovery of compensation for loss of certain goods consigned for carriage from stations on the North Western Railway to Howrah, a station on the East Indian Railway.

( 2 ) IN the plaint it was alleged that a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court, as the notices of claim under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act were issued from Calcutta and were served on the 1st defendant, East Indian Railway, in Calcutta within the jurisdiction of the Court.

( 3 ) THE defendants in these suits were described as follows : (1) Governor General for India in Council representing East Indian Railway; (2) Governor General for India in Council representing North Western Railway.

( 4 ) A common defence to these suits inter alia was that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suits.

( 5 ) BY consent of parties, the above 10 suits were directed to be heard together.

( 6 ) BY an order dated 19-12-1947, the learned trial judge decreed the suits.

( 7 ) IN overruling the plea as to want of jurisdiction of the Court, the learned judge observed that the consignment forms one cause of action and as the Court has jurisdiction over the East Indian Railway, the suits are maintainable in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta under Section 18 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. In each of the suits the defendants filed applications for a new trial under Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882.

( 8 ) THE applications came up for hearing before the learned Chief Judge and the trial judge. As the learned judges entertained reasonable doubt as to the interpretation of Section 18 (c), of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, they made a reference to this Court under Section 69 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 for the opinion of this Court on the question :"whether on the facts of these cases, this Court has jurisdiction to try the suits so far as the North Western Railway is concerned. "

( 9 ) THE learned judges recorded their opinion as follows :"in the premises we are of opinion that this Court has jurisdiction to try the suits against the defendant Governor General in Council representing North Western Railway under Section 18 (c), Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. "

( 10 ) THE learned judges reserved judgment in the applications for new trial pending receipt of the opinion of this Court.

( 11 ) THE reference to this Court was numbered as Reference No. 2 of 1948.

( 12 ) THE reference was heard by their Lordships Mookerjee and J. P. Mitter JJ.

( 13 ) BY their order dated 22-3-1951 their Lordships referred the following question to a Full Bench for decision: "whether service of notice under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act is part of the plaintiff's cause of action. "

( 14 ) IN the referring order, their Lordships held that (1) there was only one defendant viz. the Governor General in Council and the learned judges of the Small Cause Court were wrong in presuming that there were two defendants representing the two railway administrations : (2) The Governor General in Council representing the two railway administrations could not be said to have actually or voluntarily resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court even though the head office of the East Indian Railway administration was within such jurisdiction; (3) On the point as to whether service of notice under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act on a place within the jurisdiction of the Court is part of the plaintiff's cause of action and attracts Section 18 (a) of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, they differed from the Bench decision of this Court in the Case of 'dominion of India v. Gopal Chandra', 55 Cal W N 113. The learned referring judges gave their unreserved opinion on the question