Bisheshwar Dayal Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS is defendant's appeal. Facts relevant are not in dispute. A consignment of 173 packages of pies and fire -bars was booked from Barakar, Eastern Railway by M/s. Barakar Engineering and Foundry Works to the plaintiff at Baitalpur, N.E. Railway for carriage on January 24, 1957. Of these, 123 packages reached the destination on March 6, 1957. Open delivery in respect of 122 packages was given to the plaintiff by the Railway Administration in July 22, 1957. The rest of the consignment arrived at the destination during December 27 and 30, 1957. There was delivery made of 28 packages to the plaintiff on September 13, 1958. The remaining 23 packages remained undelivered. A suit was instituted by the plaintiff on November 12, 1959 for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 14,311.14 as damages for the non -delivery of 23 packages. This was after the plaintiff had given notice under Section 80, C.P.C. on April 23, 1959.
(2.) THE defendants resisted the suit pleading, inter alia, that it was barred by limitation. The trial Court held on May 20, 1963, that the suit was barred by limitation in view of Article 31 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908. It was pointed out also that the suit would be barred by limitation even if Article 30 applied. In appeal filed by the plaintiff the lower appellate Court reversed this finding and expressed the view on February 14, 1975 that the suit is within limitation in the light of Article 31. Accordingly, the suit has been decreed for the amount mentioned above.
(3.) THE sole point raised in controversy is with regard to the limitation for the suit giving rise to this appeal. The relevant provisions in force were as under; ;