SATISH CHANDRA, J. :- This is a defendant's second appeal. It arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs.1200/-on ground of non-delivery of one bale out of a consignment consisting of three bales of cloth. This consignment was booked at Ahmedabad Railway Station belonging to the Western Railway on 12th January. 1961, for delivery at Muzaffarnagar. The goods were delivered to the plaintiff at Muzaffarnagar on 24th January, 1961, but the Railway Administration gave delivery of only 2 bales. One bale was not delivered at all.It was alleged that this bale contained 160 Dhoti-Jodas worth Rupees 1123.17 N.P. The plaintiff served a notice under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act and Sec.80. Civil P.C. on the General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi; and not evoking any response, filed the present suit on 14th August, 1961. The plaint designated the defendant as Indian Union through the General Manager. Northern Railway, Headquarter Officer, New Delhi. By an amendment the phrase: through the General Manager. Northern Railway was scored out. It appears that after the amendment the plaintiff intended to sue the Union of India as the owner of the Western as well as the Northern Railways.

2. The Union of India contested the suit on a variety of grounds which included that the notices were invalid, that there has been a violation of Section 60 of the Railways Act and pleaded that the suit was liable to be dismissed. It was alleged that the Western or the Northern Railways were not responsible because no loss took place while the goods were being carried by these Railway Administrations. The trial court dismissed the suit principally on the ground that the loss having occurred on the Central Railway, the destination Railway was not responsible to compensate the plaintiff. It held that the amendments introduced to Section 80. Civil P.C. by the Central Amending Act No.39 of 1961 were not applicable because in the instant case the loss took place prior to the coming into force of the amendment. The notice was also served before that date and the suit was also instituted before the coming into force of the Amendments on 1st January, 1962.

3. The plaintiff went up in appeal and succeeded. The lower appellate court held that the court was entitled to take into consideration the changes in law during the course of the pendency of the suit. Consequently, the amended Section 80 would be applicable. Under the amended section the destination Railway Administration as well as the one on which the loss took place were liable. The Union of India being the owner of all the Railway Administrations involved in the carriage of goods in the present case, the suit was liable to be decreed against the union of India. In the suit the plaintiff was liable to implead only the Union of India and as such the frame of the suit was not defective for not impleading the Central Railway as such. It held that the plaintiff has proved that it suffered loss to the extent of Rs.1123.17 N.P. and on these findings the appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed for that amount.

4. When the second appeal came up for hearing before a learned single Judge it was urged on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent that the provisions of Section 80 of the Railways Act relate to territorial jurisdiction, i.e. the place of suing and, therefore, by virtue of Section 21. Civil P.C. the suit could not fail unless failure of justice was proved. Reliance was placed upon Chandra Mohan v. Union of India. AIR 1953 Assam 193 (FB). The learned Judge agreed with this submission; but on behalf of the appellant reliance was placed upon the case of Prahlad Rai and Sons v. Union of India, AIR 1967 All 530 in which another learned single Judge of this Court expressed the opinion that the Railway administration other than the administration from where the goods were sent was liable only if it is proved that the loss occurred while the goods were in transit on that particular administration. The lea