Modi, J.—This is a revision by the plaintiff Ramratan against the judgment of the Civil Judge, Bikaner, dismissing the plaintiffs suit for compensation, as a Small Cause Court.

2. The facts of the case are short and simple. The plaintiffs case is that on the 24th June, 1950, eighteen bags of Gur and two bags of Moong were on his behalf handed over to the Bikaner State Railway under invoice No. 103983 to be delivered at Deshnokh, and similarly on the 27th June, 1950, 121 bags of gawar were entrusted to the same Railway at Keshrisinghpur under invoice No. 105360 also to be delivered at Deshnokh. The plaintiffs grievance is that out of the first consignment he received 37 seer of gur short of the total quantity consigned, and out of the second consignment he received a shortage of eight maunds and ten seers of gowar. Consequently, the plaintiff gave a notice to the Bikaner State Railway on the 10th July, 1950, apparently under sec. 77 of the Indian Railways Act, and he further gave a notice under sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the 3rd April, 1951. Learned counsel who drew up the plaint for the plaintiff thought that limitation for the suit commenced after the expiry of two months from the 3rd April, 1951, and consequently it was stated that the suit was within time as it was brought on the 17th December, 1951. This impression of the legal advisers of the plaintiff, in my opinion, was completely wrong. Be that as it may, the plaintiff claimed a total compensation of Rs. 147/- for the loss caused to him as also prayed for costs and pendente lite interest, and brought this suit against the Bikaner State Railway and the Union of India.

3. The defendants resisted the suit. A number of pleas were raised; but it is unnecessary to refer to them as the learned trial Judge held that the suit was barred by time and threw out the plaintiffs suit on that ground alone. The plaintiff has now come up in revision to this Court.

4. The sole question for determination in this revision is whether the plaintiffs suit has been rightly dismissed as barred by time.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that limitation for the suit really commenced from the 18th December, 1950, and the 19th December, 1950, being the dates of letters with respect to the suit consignments, which the petitioner received from some body who signed for the Traffic Manager, Bikaner State Railway, and wherein it was stated that the consignments had been booked at owners risk under risk note form A, and, therefore, the claim for compensation was inadmissible. If this is the correct starting point for limitation, then undoubtedly the plaintiffs suit is within time.

6. Now the relevant articles of the Limitation Act which fall to be considered to determine the question of limitation are Art. 30 and 31. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the correct article to apply in this case is Art. 30 whereas learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the proper Article applicable is Art. 31. These two articles read as follows:—

"30. Against a carrier for compensation for losing or injuring goods......One year When the loss or injury occurs

31. Against a carrier for compensation for non delivery of, or delay in delivering goods.....One year When the goods ought to be delivered.

7. Having carefully considered the rival contentions raised as regards the applicability of either Art. 30 or 31 to the facts and circumstances of the present case I have arrived at the conclusion that it is really unnecessary to determine that question for the purposes of the present revision, and, therefore, I do not propose to address myself to that task which has occasioned divergence of judicial opinion in the various High Courts.

8. Assuming that Art. 30 governs this case, the question arises how the period of one year has to be computed for purposes of limitation. The starting point as provided under this Article is "when the loss or injury occurs". The correct view

Click Here to Read the rest of this document