HEGDE, J - (1.) THE following Judgment of the court was delivered by
(2.) THE only question that arises for decision in this appeal by certificate is whether the High court is right in holding that the notice issued by the appellant plaintiff under s. 80, Civil Procedure Code is defective and therefore the suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff dispatched on 29/07/1947 certain copper articles from Gujranwala through North Western Railway to a place called Aghawanpur near Moradabad. That consignment never reached the destination. Consequently the plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 13,880.00 as damages. The learned Civil Judge, Moradabad, who tried the suit decreed the plaintiffs claim in a sum of Rs. 10,206.00/9.00 with interest at six per cent from 15/08/1947 till the date of realisation. As against that decision, the union of India went up in appeal to the High court of Allahabad. The decree of the trial court was assailed on several grounds one of them being that the notice issued under s. 80, Civil Procedure Code is invalid. The High court accepted the contention of the Union of India that the notice in question is invalid but rejected the other pleas advanced on its behalf. It accordingly allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit on the sole ground that the notice issued did not comply with the requirements of s. 80, Civil procedure Code. It is not disputed that at the relevant time, the plaintiff carried on his business at Gujranwala under the name and style of Raghunath Das Mulkhraj. He was the sole proprietor of that concern. He sent several notices to the concerned authorities demanding compensation for his goods lost in transit.
(3.) IT is not necessary to refer to all the notices issued by the plaintiff. IT is sufficient for our purpose if we consider the legality of the last notice sent by him viz. on 19/06/1948. If that notice is valid then undoubtedly the suit is maintainable. The notice in question reads thus: `From: M/s. Raghunath Dass Mulkhraj, C/o. Dr. Khamani Singh, Katghar Gan Khana, Moradabad. To: The General Manager, East Indian Railway, Calcutta. A notice like this has already been given to the secretary, central government of India, New Delhi and now it is being given to you according to Amendment in the procedure code. We have the honour to serve you with the following notice under section 80, Civil Procedure Code. The facts leading upto the said notice are as follows: 1. That we are the refugees of Gujranwala (West Punjab) and now residing in Katghar, Gari Khana, Moradabad. 2. That under R.R. No. 550240, dated 29/07/1947 Ex-Gujranwala to. Agwanpur weighing 52 bundles 73 mds. 29 seers were booked from Gujranwala to Agwanpur. 3. That the aforesaid consignment has not been delivered to us so far due to the Railway's negligence, misconduct and gross carelessness. 4. That the non-delivery of the said consignment we have suffered a great loss and damage. 5. That on 14/10/1947, we preferred a claim against the Railway and claimed the sum of Rs. 12,554/1 for the loss non-delivery of the aforesaid goods. JUDGEMENT_674_AIR(SC)_1969Html1.htm That the Chief Commercial Manager, E. 1. Railway by his letter No. A-2/5196/47, dated 25/11/1947 acknowledged the receipt of our claim. 7. That thereafter nothing was heard from him in spite of our several reminders and requests for early payment. 8. That so far the goods have not been delivered to us nor our claim in respect thereof settled and paid. Hence this notice is served to you. 9. That now we claim the sum of Rs. 1331/10 as detailed above inclusive damage @ 1% till 26/06/1948. 10. That the cause of action for this notice and the suit to be filed here after arose at Moradabad (U.P.) which is the District where the goods ought to have been delivered on or about 13/08/1947 when the same should have been delivered and thereafter on the various dates mentioned in the correspondence and on the expiry of the period of this notice. 11. That we nope and will request you to please pay to us the amount of the claim at an early date and not to force us to go to the law courts in our present and plight in which case you and the Railway will be responsible and liable for all our costs and damages. Yours faithfully, For M/s. Raghunath Dass Mulkhraj Sd./: Raghunath Dass Proprietor Dated: Copy to: Chief Commercial Manager, Calcutta.` The High court held that the notice in question does not meet the requirements of the law as the person who issued the notice is not the same person who filed the suit. In so deciding it heavily relied on the decision of this court in S.N. Dutt v. Union of India. ( 1 );