The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the limitation period under Article 30 and Article 31 of the Limitation Act in cases involving the loss of goods by a carrier and the time when the goods ought to be delivered.

( 1 ) THE complaint in this rule is that the Cts. below have wrongly thrown out the pltf's. suit on the ground of limitation. The facts are extremely simple and are as follows:

( 2 ) ON 6-5-1944, the petnr. handed over a bundle of cloth at the Burra bazar Booking Office of the B. and A. Rly. for carriage from Calcutta to a station called Jogbani. The handle was never delivered. Some correspondence followed in the course of which by a letter dated 13-3-1945, the Rly. informed the petnr. that one bundle belonging to his consignment was lying undelivered at the destination and that he must make arrangements for taking delivery within a certain time. The letter reads as follows:"dear Sir, sub : Calcutta Burra Bazar to Jogbani P. W. B. 963712 of 6. 5. 44. one bundle of cloth. With reference to your letter No. nil dated 2/8/44, I beg to inform you that one bundle of cloth belonging to the above consignment is lying undelivered at destination at your sole risk and responsibility and incurring wharfage daily. Will you please arrange to take delivery of the same at an early date ? if delivery is not taken or instructions received as to its disposal within 15 days from the date of this letter, the bundle will be disposed of tinder Sections 55 and 56, Railways Act IX [9] of 1890 to defray the charges due to the Rly. "the letter was signed by someone who described himself as the Chief Commercial Manager.

( 3 ) THE petnr. on receipt of this letter, went to examine the bundle but found that it did not belong to him at all. Thereafter, some further correspondence followed but nothing in particular resulted. Ultimately, on 22-8-1945, the present suit was brought by which the petnr. asked for a decree for Rs. 1465/7/- that according to him being the price of the contents of the bundle. In the body of his plaint be stated that the deft. had failed and neglected to deliver the consignment and that he was entitled to the sum claimed either as damages for breach of contract or as damages for wrongful conversion or as damages suffered by him on account of negligence and misconduct of the Rly.

( 4 ) INEVITABLY, limitation was pleaded in defence. But the Rly. also stated that the goods had been lost in transit.

( 5 ) AS the Ct. below has been disposed of the case on the sole ground of limitation, it is not necessary to refer to the further pleas on the merits.

( 6 ) THE trial Ct. decreed the suit. It over-ruled the plea of limitation in the view that the Art. applicable was Article 30, Limitation Act, under which the starting point was "when the loss or injury occurs. " As, according to the learned Judge, it lay on the deft. Rly. to prove when the loss had occurred and they had not proved that it had occurred on a date be-yond one year from the institution of the suit, the learned Judge held, was not barred by limitation. Acting on that view of limitation, the learned Judge passed a decree for the whole amount claimed.

( 7 ) THEREAFTER, the opposite party applied for a new trial which was granted and a F. B. constituted, as the practice is, of the Chief Judge A the trial Judge himself, was formed. The F. B. took the view that not Article 30 but Article 31, Limitation Act applied. The learned Judges referred to a statement made by the pleader for the petnr. that the goods ought to have been delivered on 16-5-1944.

( 8 ) THE starting point of limitation under Article 31 is "when the goods ought to be delivered. " The learned Judges accordingly held that since, on the pltf's. own admission, the goods ought to have been delivered on 16-5-1944, and the suit had not been brought till 22-8-1945, it was plainly barred tinder Section 31, Limitation Act.

( 9 ) IT was contended before the learned Judges that the letter which deft. Rly. had written on 12-3-1945, amounted to an acknowledgment of liability within the meaning of Section 19, Limitation Act. The learned Judges overruled that contention somewhat summarily by saying that the le