These two Civil Revision Petitions arise out of a suit (S.C.S. No 8816 of 1952) filed in the Court of Small Causes at Madras by one E. Govindaswami Chetti, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 668-9-6 from the defendant, viz., the Great Eastern Shipping Co., Limited, and the Madras Port Trust, defendants 1 and 2 respectively, in the following circumstances:

The plaintiff was a consignee of 219 bundles of wet salted cow-hides despatched from Calcutta to Madras per S.S. “Avanee” belonging to the first defendant shipping company. These bundles bore the mark of the plaintiff “EGC.” The ship arrived at the Madras harbour on 30th January, 1952 and the cargo intended tor delivery at Madras was unloaded and the goods were delivered over by the Master of the ship to the Madras Port Trust authorities, who passed receipts, sometimes described as tally sheets, as prescribed by section 39 (3) of the Madras Port Trust Act. As the goods were unloaded in the course of 3 or 4 days, they were covered by more than one tally sheet. The total shown in these tally sheets as having been taken charge of by the Port Trust was 276 bundles with the mark EGC, evidently a mistake, as the plaintiff was a consignee only of 219 bundles. When the’ consignee applied for delivery, the Port Trust supplied him only 215 bundles. The delivery was completed by 7th February, 1952. When the plaintiff demanded the balance of 4 bundles, the Port Trust replied that though 219 bundles were manifested under the plaintiff’s mark, only 215 bundles bearing that mark were found and the remaining four bundles were short-landed. Long after the landing and the delivery to the plaintiff, the Port Trust issued what is described as an adjustment sheet for the consignment of bundles of skin landed S.S. “Avanee” (Exhibit D-4) in which they made the correction and showed that there was a deficiency of four bundles out of the manifest number of 219 bundles. The consignee thereupon filed the suit for the recovery of the value of the four bundles, viz., Rs 607-19-6 together with the sum of Rs. 60-12-0 representing the profit which he would have got by selling the hides. The learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes who tried the suit passed a decree against the Madras Port Trust for Rs 607-13-6 and Proportionate costs. He dismissed the suit against the shipping company He held that though ordinarily it is the shipping company who would be responsible under the Bill of Lading for any shortage, as the Port Trust, a statutory body, had taken charge of the consignment after unloading, they were responsible for all the goods shown in the Bill of Lading and the manifest which were entrusted to them by the shipper and for which they passed a receipt under section 39 (3) of the Madras Port Trust Act. The learned Judge was not prepared to accept the plea of the Port Trust that the tally sheets were subsequently corrected by the adjustment sheet, because these corrections were made three or four months after the landing He held that the first defendant was discharged from liability because of the receipt granted by the Madras Port Trust.

Against this judgment and decree of the learned Chief Judge, New Trial Applications were filed both by the Madras Port Trust and by the plaintiff Govindaswarm Chetti. The learned Judges of the New Trial Bench heard and disposed of these two applications together. They set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge and decreed the suit against the first defendant, the shipping company for the sum of Rs. 607-13-6 and dismissed the suit as against the Madras Port Trust. The shipping Company is the petitioner before me and they seek to get rid of the decree passed against them.

The ground on which the Judges in the New Trial Bench dismissed the suit against the Port Trust was that section 39 (3) of the Madras Port Trust Act applies only to a case where the owner of the goods authorises the Port Trust to take charge of the goods but that the plaint