1. The appellant is the Union of India represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, and the defendant in the suit. The suit was for damages on account of short delivery. The wagon containing the article arrived in the destination on 29th September 1981 and a request for re-weighment of the goods was rejected by the Chief Goods Clerk on the same day. Thereafter the plaintiff got it weighed on 1st October 1981 and Ext. A-5 certificate showing the actual loss was obtained. Therefore, the limitation for filing the suit will start on 1st October 1981. Under S.12(1) of the Limitation Act, the day from which the period of limitation is to be reckoned is to be excluded. Thus the suit should have been filed under Art.10 of the Limitation Act at least on 1st October 1984. However, a notice under S.80 of the Code of Civil Procedure had to be sent and it was received by the defendant on 1st October 1984. The suit was filed on 16th November 1984 with a petition for permission to file the suit before the expiry of the two months required under S.80 of the Code. The permission was granted by the trial court. Ultimately, the trial court dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation.

2. The trial court has given two reasons for holding that the suit is barred by limitation. The first reason is that the notice under S.80 was received after the period of limitation and such a notice cannot extend the period. The second reason is that the suit is filed without waiting for the period fixed in the notice and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to get the period excluded.

3. The lower appellate court allowed the appeal and granted a decree holding that S.15(2) of the Limitation Act gives the plaintiff an extra period of two months and since the suit is filed within that period it is filed within time.

4. In the second appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant pressed the following three questions of law formulated in the second appeal.

(i) Whether a notice under S.80 of C.P.C. issued after the prescribed period of limitation can be taken and treated as an effective and legal notice as required under law?

(ii) Whether an ineffective notice under S.80 C.P.C. not conforming to the statutory requirements can have the effect of extending the period of limitation as required under law?

(iii) Whether the permission of Court to file a suit before the expiry of 60 days after the issue of notice under S.80 C.P.C. tantamount to a permission to dispense with such notice at all and at the same time add the notice period of 60 days for getting the limitation period extended?

The first two questions of law are formulated on the basis that the notice under S.80 C.P.C. is received after the period of limitation. There is no doubt that a notice sent after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act will not have the effect of extending the period by two months. The reason for stating that the notice is sent after the period of limitation is because according to the defendant the wagon reached the destination on 29th September 1984 and if that is the starting point then the suit is clearly barred. But in the facts of this case, I am of opinion that 29th September 1984 cannot be taken as the starting point. That is because all that was noticed on that day was that seal was seen tampered. But that does not mean that there will be short delivery. P.W.1 has given evidence to the effect that the plaintiff could understand about actual occurrence of loss only on 1st October 1984 when it was opened and weighed. It is not because the actual loss was ascertained on that date but the fact that there was really loss was known only on that date. In this connection the Supreme Court's decision in Lekshmi Bangle Stores v. Union of India and others (1991 (1) SCC 448) is of much use to resolve the dispute. The Supreme Court held as follows:

"The knowledge of the accident may have given rise to an assumption that the goods were dama