( 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 was 56997. The name of the station at which the consignment was booked and the date of the booking had been mentioned correctly. The explanation which the applicant offered for the mistake was that in the certificate of short delivery that was issued by the railway authorities in respect of the consignment the number of the railway receipt was given incorrectly us 56997. The explanation was not accepted by the learned Judge Small Cause Court and relying on the case of Dominion of India v. Roop Chand, 1950 All WR 657, he held that the notice was defective and the suit in respect of that consignment could not succeed.

( 2 ) THE view of the learned Judge was challenged by this application in revision. When it came up for disposal before Hon. Mr. Justice V. D. Bhargava, he noticed that there were two conflicting decisions on the point. The one on which the learned Judge Small Cause Court had relied upon was reported in 1950 All LJ 595 and the other was a decision of Mr. Justice V. D. Bhargava himself reported in Ahmad Hasan v. Union of India, AIR I960 All 530. In order to resolve the conflict the learned Judge referred the application in revision to a Division Bench.

( 3 ) THREE other decisions in Allahabad Iron Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India, C. R. No. 880 of 1956, C. R. No. 441 of 1957 and C. R. No. 811 of 3957 have been mentioned by the learned judge in his referring order. We are informed that these cases were also decided by Mr. Justice v. D. Bhargava and we proceed on the assumption that the view he took in them was in consonance with the view taken in the case of AIR 1960 All 530. Another decision of one of us in C. R. No. 748 of 1956, D/- 23-12-1960 has also been brought to our notice. In that case the decision in AIR 1960 All 530 was followed.

( 4 ) THE question to be decided is whether the defect in the notice issued by the plaintiff under section 80 C. P. C. was such as made the notice invalid.

( 5 ) HOW a notice under Section 80 of the C. P. C, is to be interpreted has been considered recently by the Supreme Court in several cases. In Dhian Singn Sobha Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1958 sc 274 a claim for damages for conversion and detention had been made. In the notice served under Section 80 of the C. P. C. the plaintiffs had claimed along with other items return of two trucks in good running order, or in the alternative Rs. 3,500/- being the price of the said two trucks. The notice was not complied with, and the plaintiffs had to file a suit. By the time the case came up for decision, the price of the trucks had increased. At the trial, therefore, the plaintiffs claimed a larger amount in respect of the two trucks in case they were not re-burned. It was held by the trial court as well as by the High Court that the plaintiffs could not claim