Dave, J.—This is an appeal by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Bharatpur dated the 24th November, 1949.

2. The plaintiffs claim in the trial court was that on the 30th November, 1946, a consignment of seventeen iron pipes belonging to them was despatched from New Delhi Railway Station to Bharatpur under Invoice No. 97 R.R. No. 7857/63, that the goods should have reached Bharatpur ordinarily on the third day but instead of the goods being sent to Bharatpur they were misdirected to Gwalior, that when the plaintiff went to Gwalior he was told by the Station Master that the goods will be despatched when open wagons would be available, that the goods could not be delivered till the date of the suit on account of negligence or carelessness of the Railway and that a decree for Rs. 1329/8/- should be given against the defendant to compensate the plaintiffs, for their loss. The defendant traversed the suit and raised several objections, whereupon the following issues were framed—

1. Whether the cost of the pipes is Rs. 1329/8/- and the plaintiffs are entitled to recover them?

2. Whether notice under sec. 80 C.P.C. was issued?

3. Whether notice under sec. 77 Indian Railway Act was given? Was it necessary? What is its effect?

4. Has this court no jurisdiction to try this case?

5. Whether Sadhu Ram is a partner in the firm of Girraj Prasad Babu Lal?

6. Is the suit within time?

7. Has the plaintiff right to sue?

8. To what relief the plaintiffs are entitled?

The trial court decreed the entire suit. This case was once heard in appeal by another Bench of this Court in January, 1951. It was argued at that time by the defendant-appellant that the trial court had given no finding on issue No. 7 regarding the plaintiffs right to sue and thereupon the case was remanded to the trial court after clarifying the issue in the following language:—

"Whether the railway receipt was endorsed by Nigam Brothers in favour of the plaintiffs and they had a right to sue?

3. Both the parties were permitted to adduce their evidence on this issue and it was further directed that the defendant should also be given an opportunity to produce evidence regarding the fact that the goods did not reach Gwalior. The court was required to send the record after its findings on this point. The trial court has recorded its opinion to the effect that the plaintiffs are the endorsees and the bearers of the Railway receipt and they are, therefore, entitled to file and maintain the suits against the defendants. This finding has not been challenged now by the learned advocate for the appellant. He has abandoned all other objections and concentrated his argument only on two issues namely No. 1 and No. 6. Issue No. 6 relates to the question of limitation and therefore, it would be proper to decide it first.

4. It is contended by the appellants learned advocate that this case is covered by Art. 31 of the Indian Limitation Act, whereby the period of limitation provided for bringing the suit is one year from the date when the goods should have been delivered.

5. It has been argued that according to the plaintiff himself, the goods should have reached Bharatpur within three days and therefore, the goods should have been delivered there on the fourth day and the period of limitation should be computed from that time. The consignment was sent on the 30th November, 1946 whereas the suit was filed on the 26th November, 1949 and, therefore, it was clearly time barred. From the respondents side, it has been replied that on the representation of the plaintiff, the railway was making enquiries, that it did not give its final reply or refusal earlier than one year before the institution of the suit and therefore, the suit was well within time. It was pointed out that on the 5th February, 1947, the plaintiff wrote a letter to the Chief Traffic Manager, B.B.& C.L. Railway, Bombay intimating him that the goods were not received at Bharatpur, that an inquiry should be made and a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document