Monjula Bose, J. - (1.) In this suit the plaintiffs have claimed a sum of Rs. 19,003.65 P. against the defendants or either of them as compensation for loss and damages suffered by reason of non-delivery or short delivery of 22 pieces of copper wire bars. Hindusthan Cables Ltd., the plaintiff No. 1, it is alleged inter alia purchased 3955 pieces of Electrolytic Copper wire bars and the same were made over to the Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. the defendant No. 1 at Tacoma, Washington, U.S.A. on board their vessel "Jag Ratna" for carriage to the Port of Calcutta against a Bill of Lading dated Nov. 30, 1965 endorsed in favour of the plaintiff No. 1. The vessel "Jag Ratna" is alleged to have arrived at the Port of Calcutta on Feb. 22, 1966 and the said goods discharged at the port of Calcutta by March 1, 1966. Twenty-two pieces out of the said consignment, it is alleged were not received by the plaintiff No. 1 at all. In the premises, the plaintiff No. 1 alleges to have suffered loss and damage which is assessed at Rs. 19,003.65 P. The plaintiff No. 2, the insurer of the said goods it is further alleged has since paid off the claim of the plaintiff No. 1, who in turn has issued a letter of subrogation assigning all rights, title and interest under the policy of Insurance in favour of the plaintiff No. 2. It is contended that the plaintiff's cause of action did not arise until Dec. 14, 1966, and as such its claim is not barred under Section 142 of the Calcutta Port Act, 1890.
(2.) The defendant No. 1 has filed its written statement wherein it alleges that the entire cargo under the bill of lading was duly landed at the Port of Calcutta, and acknowledged by the defendant No. 2 in the latter's "Out-turn report", and its landing receipt. In the premises it is alleged that the responsibility of the defendant No. 1 in respect of the said cargo was fully discharged.
(3.) Commissioners of the Port of Calcutta the defendant No. 2 herein, also filed a written statement and admitted that landing receipts were granted for the entire manifested quantity but alleges that the same was issued by mistake, and that subsequently it was discovered that delivery was short landed by 22 pieces. The plaintiff's lack of knowledge of loss till Dec. 14, 1966 was denied and it is also disputed that the plaintiff's cause of action did not arise earlier than the said date. It is further denied that the plaintiff No. 1 suffered any loss or damage, and it is contended that the claim of the plaintiffs against the defendant No. 2 is barred under Section 113 (2) as also under Section 142 of the Calcutta Port Act, 1890, hereinafter referred to as the said Act.;