( 1 ) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit brought against the East Indian Railway for non-delivery of goods. In the grounds of appeal two main questions of law have been raised. One question is that no notice under Section 77, Railways Act was required because this was a case of non-delivery and not a case of loss, destruction or deterioration of goods. The second question raised is that the suit is not barred by time because limitation began to run from the date on which the Railway intimated their failure to deliver the goods and not from the date on which the goods should have been delivered in the ordinary course. These are both important questions of law, and I understand that the first question is up for decision before a Full Bench of this Court in Governor-General in Council v. Mahabir Bam, First Appeal No. 525 of 1944. (ALL ). On this first question there is already a conflict of opinion in views expressed in two cases both of which were decided by Division Benches of this Court. In Sheo Dayal Niranjan Lal v G. I. P. Rly. Co. , 49 ALL. 236, it was held that non-delivery includes loss as that term is used in Section 77, Railways Act, 1890, and notice of