GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, J. - (1.) THIS first appeal has been filed by the appellant plaintiff challenging the adjudication made by the trial Court with regard to issues No. 3 and 5 against him vide judgment dated 15.12.1986.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the appellant -plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs. 38,857.31 with interest and cost against the defendant -respondent, in which, it is averred that he is doing business of mahua flowers and vide bill No. 23 dated 07.05.1981 at the rate of 155/ - per quintal he purchased mahua flowers from M/s Sadguru Prasad Suresh Chander and the said goods was booked on the same day with the malgodown of the Western Railway vide RR No. 153631 dated 07.05.1981. Further, it is stated that the above -said goods was to reach Dungarpur but the goods did not reach Dungarpur, therefore, on 03.08.1981 vide registered letter the plaintiff -appellant informed about the whereabouts of the flowers but no reply was received by him. Thereafter, he served a notice under Section 80, C.P.C., read with Section 78B of the Railway Act; but, no reply to that notice was given by the respondent. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the suit. In the suit, the trial Court issued notice and on behalf of the respondent -defendant, written -statement was filed on 08.09.1982, in which, all the liabilities were denied. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned District Judge framed as many as six issues and, at the trial, evidence was led by both the parties. Ultimately, the learned District Judge dismissed the suit vide the impugned judgment dated 15.12.1986, in which, although issues No. 1, 2, 4 and 6 were decided in favour of the plaintiff -appellant but issues No. 3 and 5 were decided against the plaintiff -appellant.
(3.) IN this appeal, the plaintiff -appellant is challenging the adjudication by the trial Judge with regard to issues No. 3 and 5 on the following grounds: (A) According to the appellant, the learned District Judge has gravely erred in law as well as on facts while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. (B) The learned District Judge has committed serious error in not taking into account the amended provisions of Section 80 of the Railways Act, as amended by Act No. 30 of 1961, therefore, it is crystal -clear that suit can be filed against the Railway administration, within which, the destination lies. (C) The learned Court below has gravely erred in deciding issues No. 3 and 5 against the plaintiff because the perusal of record would reveal that notice under Section 78B of the Railways Act, read with Section 80, C.P.C., was given on 08.10.1981. Further, it is contended that the composite notice under Section 78A and 78B of the Railways Act can be given as held by this Court in the judgment reported in AIR 1964 Rajasthan 41. On the above contentions the plaintiff is challenging the adjudication made by the learned trial Court with regard to issues No. 3 and 5.;