( 1 ) THIS revision application has come to us on a reference made by Mr. Justice V. D. Bhargava. The question involved is a short one. The plaintiff is the applicant. He filed a suit in the Small Cause court at Aligarh against the Union of India claiming Rs. 254/10/- on account of two consignments which had been booked by the plaintiff but one of them had not been delivered at all and there was short delivery in respect of the other. Before filing the suit, the applicant served a notice under Section 80, C. P. C. The two consignments in dispute had been booked as per railway receipt Nos. 912866 and 569967. The latter was booked for Bangalore. The former had originally been booked from Aligarh to Koka but had been rebocked from Koka to Aligarh. The consignment relating to railway receipt No. 912869 is no longer in dispute. In respect of the other consignment to which railway receipt No. 569976 related, the plaintiffs suit has been dismissed on the ground that the notice served under Section 80 C. P. C. was defective. The defect in the, notice was that the number of the railway receipt had been mentioned wrongly. Instead of 569967 the number mentioned in the notice wa