Service of notices under Section 80 CPC is not a part of the cause of action and can be amended in the plaint if it does not change the cause of action or prejudice the defendant.

PATRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff whose suit to recover Rs. 5070 from the Union of India representing the defendant-Railways was dismissed by the Subordinate judge, Sambalpur. The plaintiff was the endorsed consignee in respect of a consignment of 220 bags of sugar booked from Bhatni to Jharsuguda. When the consignment was delivered there was a total shortage of 4437 kg. or 119 mds. of sugar. The plaintiff obtained a short certificate and served notices under Section 77 of the Railways Act and under Section 80 Civil P. C. Thereafter he filed a suit claiming damages for 4437 kg. of sugar and the cost of 36 gunny bags received in torn condition, amounting to Rs. 5070. The Union of India denied the title of the plaintiff to the goods and contended that the goods having been booked at owner's risk rate without compliance with the packing conditions and the bags being old and torn the defendant cannot be held liable for the loss. It was further contended that the statutory notices under section 80 Civil P. C. having not been duly served on the Railways, the suit was not maintainable. The correctness of the rate at which the damages were claimed was also disputed. At the time of hearing, however, the defendants did not press their contentions regarding shortage and the non-compliance with the packing conditions. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the rate at which the damages have been claimed is not excessive. A decree for the plaintiff was therefore to follow, but for the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the plaintiff failed to prove that notices under Section 80 Civil P. C. have been duly served on the defendants. In the result be dismissed the suit, but without any costs. Hence this appeal by the plaintiff.

( 2 ) THE only question therefore for consideration in this appeal is whether there was due service of notices under Section 80, Civil P. C. on the defendants,

( 3 ) THE plaintiff Madanlal Kadia is the sole proprietor of the business "madanlal sajan Kumar Kadia" at Jharsuguda. Notices were issued under Section 77 of railways Act and under Section 80, Civil P. C. in the name of M/s. Madanlal Sajan kumar Kadia. These notices were dated 20-1-61. Immediately afterwards the plaintiff discovered that the notices were defective obviously in view of the decision in AIR 1961 SC 1449, to the effect that where an individual carries on business in some name and style the notice has to be given by the individual in his own name. Plaintiff's case is that thereafter he served further notices under section 80, Civil P. C. , to the defendants, Ex. 6 is the copy of the notice produced by the plaintiff, and it is dated 8-10-61. Exts. 6 (a) to 6 (e) are the postal receipts which go to show that registered letters were sent to the defendants arid they were despatched to the North Eastern Railway and Eastern Railway on 9-10-61 and to the three other Railways on 10-10-61. P. W. 2 who is plaintiff's claim agent deposes that the receipts Exts. 6 (a) to 6 (e)related to the notice Ext. 6 sent to the defendants. Exts. 6 (f) to 6 (j) are the postal acknowledgments received from the defendant-railways in token of their having accepted certain registered letters and P. W. 2 says that Exts. 6 (f) to Ext. 6 (j) related to the receipts Exts. 6 (a) to 6 (e ). D. W. 1 who is a clerk of the office of the General Manager, South Eastern Railway produced 3 registers Exts. A, A/1 and A/2 maintained in General Manager's office in which receipts of all notices in the office of the General Manager are noted. It is with reference to these registers that he said that the General Manager's office did not receive any claim in respect of the suit consignment. But on being confronted with the Ext. 6 (f) the postal acknowledgment, D. W. 1 admitted that the letter relating to Ext 6 (f) had been received in his office. This letter has not been produced to show that the letter received under Ext. 6 (f) does not relate to the present claim. We