Bapna, J.—This is a second appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of damages.

2. The plaintiff Lokchand booked two items, one cycle and one trunk, from Ujjain to Kishangarh on 27th July, 1947. When he reached Kishangarh on 29th July, 1947, he got delivery of the cycle but not of the trunk. He entered into correspondence with the Traffic Manager, B. B. & G. I. Railway, and gave a notice under sec. 77 of the Railways Act to the Traffic Manager, on 13th August, 1947, and later on under sec.80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 16th March, 1950, and as he did not receive any satisfaction, he instituted, the present suit on 5th September, 1950, for recovery of Rs.712/8/-as value of the goods which were not delivered.

3. On behalf of the Railway Administration the pleas taken were that the notice under sec. 77 of the Railways Act was not valid, that the notice under sec. 80 C.P.C. was not served, and that the suit was barred by limitation.

4. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the alleged notice under sec. 77 of the Railways Act was not served on the proper officer.

5. On appeal, the learned Civil Judge held that no notice was necessary under sec.77 of the Railways

Click Here to Read the rest of this document