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 m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document