The limitation period for a suit for compensation for short delivery of goods by a railway starts from the date of short delivery and not from the date of repudiation of claim by the railway.

NARASIMHAM, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from the judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Balasore, dismissing a suit brought by the appellant-plaintiff for recovery of compensation from the respondent --railway administration --for short delivery of goods. The plaintiff-appellant is a partnership firm.

( 2 ) ON 25-10-48 a consignment of 20 bales of cotton waste blankets was despatched by a firm in Bombay known as Sukhdeolal Ramnibas from Wadi Bandar addressed to the District Magistrate of Balasore, under Invoice No. 18 and R. R. No. 8117/58 dated 28-10-48 (Ext. A ). This was despatched in Wagon No. 5999 E. I. Railway which in due course arrived at Balasore. The R/r was handed over to the plaintiff by the District Magistrate and, on its production, the plaintiff obtained delivery of the consignment on 15-11-48 from the Goods Office of the Railway at Balasore. It was noticed, however, that 11 bales were missing from, the consignment. Thereupon, on 8-12-48 the plaintiff informed the Claims Officer, B, N. Railway, Calcutta about the non-delivery of the consignment and claimed compensation of Rs. 9031-11-0 (Ex. 3 ). The Railway acknowledged receipt of the claim; (Ex. 1 dated 14-1-49) and stated that "the matter is receiving its attention". After some reminders, the plaintiff was informed by the Superintendent of Claims, B. N. Railway, on 17-6-49 (Ex. 4) that the loss of goods booked took place during a running train theft and consequently the railway was not liable to make good the loss. Hence the Railway repudiated the claim for compensation. The plaintiff brought the present suit on 15-3-50.

( 3 ) BEFORE the lower Court the parties went to trial on the following main issues:

(i) The claim of the plaintiff is barred by Section 69 (2) of the Partnership Act as the plaintiff-firm was admittedly not registered under that Act.

(ii) There was no valid assignment of the R/r in favour of the plaintiff by the District Magistrate and consequently the plaintiff had no right to sue.

(iii) The suit was barred under Article 31 of the Limitation Act inasmuch as the time would run from the date of which the remaining portions of the consignment were delivered (15-11-48) and (iv) The loss was due to theft from a running train and not due to misconduct on the part of the railway staff.

( 4 ) THE trial Court decided all these issues in favour of the plaintiff except issue No. (i ). On the question of limitation he held that time would run not from the date (15-11-48) on which short delivery took place but from the date on which the Railway finally repudiated the claim by their letter Ext, 4 dated 17-6-49.

( 5 ) MR. Pal on behalf of the respondent while supporting the judgment of the lower Court so far as the bar of Section 69 (2) of the Partnership Act was concerned, further urged that the view taken by the lower Court on the question of limitation was wrong and that time would run from, the date on which short delivery took place, namely, 15-11-48. But on all other questions counsel for both sides fairly did not challenge the findings of the lower Court and it is unnecessary to refer to them hero.

( 6 ) SECTION 69 (2) of the Partnership Act: The plaintiff's clerk (P. W. 1) admitted that the plaintiff is a firm of partners and that the partnership deed was drawn up in due course. He was, however, unable to say if the firm was duly registered but it appears from the judgment of the lower Court that the counsel for the plaintiff conceded before that Court that no such registration had, in fact, taken place. In view of this concession on facts, the trial Court held that the plaintiff's claim is absolutely barred by Section 69 (2) of the Partnership Act. Section 69 (2) prohibits the enforcement of any right arising from a contract by way of suit in any court by or on behalf of the firm unless the firm is registered. On the facts found the view taken by the lower Court is unarguable and Mr. Das Gupta for the appellant had therefore to conte