The plea of limitation must apply with all its consequences, and the applicant is required to show specific and sufficient cause(s) for its absence before the Court.

Swatanter Kumar, J. (Oral) - These two revisions have been on the regular board of this Court since 18.7.2000. Despite the fact that the cases have been called out on various occasions, nobody appeared for the petitioner. This Court is left with no choice, but to decide the matter in accordance with law.

2. By this order I propose to dispose of two revisions being Civil Revision No. 1792 of 1983 and Civil Revision No. 1793 of 1983 both titled as Union of India v. M/s Fibre Processors Pvt. Limited.

3. M/s Fibre Processors Pvt. Limited filed two suits on 12.9.1980 for recovery of Rs. 45,000/- and Rs. 45,810/- against invoices bearing Nos. 7 and 8, respectively. According to the plaintiff, it had handed over the consignment of Raw Jute weighing 21,775 and 21,674 kilograms vide receipts No. 786159 and 786163, dated 21.10.1977, respectively. The consignments were involved in fire while in custody of the Railways. For the damaged goods and for receipt of the goods in good condition, the plaintiff filed the above two suits for recovery of Rs. 36,570/- and Rs. 35,336.28 with Central Sales Tax @ 4% and proportionate freight charges with interest @ 12% totalling to Rs. 45,000/- and Rs. 45,810/- respectively. The plaintiffs had served a notice under Section 80 of the CPC prior to the institution of suit. As the defendants failed to appear despite service, they were ordered to be proceeded against ex parte and finally the ex parte decreed were passed by the learned trial Court against the defendant on 28.4.1981. The trial Court specifically noticed that the view of the defendants in rejecting the claim of the plaintiff on the basis of Section 73 exception (i) of the India Railways Act, 1890 was not satisfied as the defendant failed to show that the fire was for a reason beyond the control of the carrier or foresight. After being fully satisfied and mainly relying upon Ex. P3, decrees for the amount afore-noticed were passed. The defendants filed an application under Order 13 read with Section 151 of the CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 28.4.1981. It was stated that the General Manager of the concerned Railway was not served in accordance with law and they came to know of the ex parte decree only on 9.9.1981 and thereafter they filed the applications for setting aside ex parte decrees. Upon notice, the plaintiff filed reply to the applications and the learned trial Court framed the following issues :

"1. Whether there are sufficient grounds for setting aside the ex parte decree ? OPA

2. Whether the application is within limitation ? OPA

3. Relief."

4. After considering the said issues the learned trial Court dismissed the application by coming to the conclusion that neither sufficient cause has been shown for setting aside the ex parte decrees nor the applications were within time. In fact, the learned Court also dealt with the merits of the contentions raised in regard to suits including legality of the service of notice on railways. The observations of the learned trial Court in this regard read as under :

"He admitted in his cross-examination that the summons Ex. RI sent in the suit was received in the office of the Secretary Railway Board. There is also stamp of the said office with the initials of the concerned clerk regarding the receipt of the said summons. It was argued that the suit was filed against the Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Government of India, New Delhi. However, there is no post of the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Government of India as also admitted by the plaintiffs counsel. However, the summons were served in the office of the Secretary Railways Board. There is admittedly a post of Secretary Railways Board as also admitted by K.D. Misrani AW1. So, the summons in the suit were duly served on a proper person for the defendant. Order 27 CPC which provides for suits by or against the Government etc. does not make any specific provision in this respect. Section 79 CPC al