JUDGMENT : This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 950/- on account of non-delivery of one bale out of a consignment of two bales of cloth which had been booked on 27-8-1952 at Ahemadabad on the Western Railway for delivery to the plaintiff at Farrukhabad on the North Eastern Railway. Only one bale was delivered to the plaintiff and hence it claimed damages for the loss of the other bale.

2. The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that the plaintiff was not entitled to sue.

3. The trial Court dismissed the suit, and its decision was affirmed on appeal by the lower appellate Court.

4. The only question for consideration is whether the plaintiff was entitled to any relief as against the defendant-respondent.

5. The suit was instituted against 'the Union of India, New Delhi, even through General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.' It was fully established that notices under S. 77 of the Indian Railways Act and Section 80 of the C.P.C. had been duly served both on the General Managers of the Western Railway as also of the North Eastern Railway. The plaintiff based its claim on the ground that out of the consignment of two bales of cloth, delivery was made of only one bale, and thus it had suffered a loss of Rs. 950/- on account of he non-delivery of the aforesaid on bale of cloth. The plaintiff did not say that the aforesaid bale was lost in transit at any particular place during the course of its carriage from Ahmedabad to Farrukhabad. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that since the Union of India had been impleaded through the North Eastern Railway and the consignment had been hooked at Ahmedabad on the Western Railway, the claim court only be decreed it was established that the loss and occurred within the jurisdiction of the North Eastern Railway. The Court below observed as follows :

"In the case before me the Union of India New Delhi has been impleaded and the service upon the defendant has been made through the General Manager N. E. Railway Gorakhpur. Thus it is clear that the plaint on the very face of it shows that the state, is sought to be made liable as owner of the destination Railway and not as owner of the booking Railway."

The Court below found that it had not been proved that the loss occurred while the consignment moved on the N. E. Railway, and as such, the suit against the N. E. Railway could not be decreed.

6. If the consignment was booked at a place within the jurisdiction of one railway administration to a place within the jurisdiction of another railway administration and the plaintiff sued the latter railway administration, then in that case the burden was on the plaintiff to show that the loss occurred within the jurisdiction of the railway administration within whose jurisdiction the place on the delivery was situate. But it the plaintiff sued the railway administration of the place where the consignment had been booked, then it was not necessary for the plaintiff to show that the toss occurred at any particular point of its transit from the place of consignment to the place of its delivery. The question for consideration, therefore, in the present case is whether it could be held that the plaintift had sued not only the N.E. Railway administration. Both also the Western Railway administration. Both the railway administrations being under the Central Government, the Union of India could represent either

or both of them. If only the Union of India was impleaded as the defendant in the present case, it could not be said that the absence of any mention of any particular railway administration in the array of parties could tie fatal to a suit. The definition of "railway administration" in S. 3(6) the Indian Railways Act includes the Government, and, therefore, in the case of railways which are Government-owned, they could sufficiently be represented by the Union of India. In Dominion of India v. M/s. Madan Engineering Tool Products (F. A. No. 162 of