Skip to content


Dominion of India Now the Union of India (Uoi) Vs. L. Ram Kumar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 274 of 1951
Judge
Reported inAIR1959All168
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 80
AppellantDominion of India Now the Union of India (Uoi)
RespondentL. Ram Kumar
Appellant AdvocateS. Sanyal, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateK.C. Saxena, Adv.
Excerpt:
civil - non-delivery of part of consignment - section 80 of code of civil procedure, 1908 - plaintiff issue notice for suit where he claims for non-delivery of consignment booked by railway administration - he fails to mention in notice the place and date of dispatch of goods - held, notice is invalid. - - that the particulars, which were wrongly given by the plaintiff, in his notice, were vital is further clear from the fact that the plaintiff himself thought it advisable to seek, an amendment of the plaint, which, it is interesting to note, was granted after the period of limitation for the suit had expired......east indian railway, calcutta under section 80 of the civil procedure code on 15-9-1949. in this notice ram kumar mentioned the name of the station of booking as sompur khidarpur docks. he, however,gave the number of the railway receipt correctly. further in the notice he gave the date of delivery as 24-9-1949 instead of 11-10-1948, which was the correct date of delivery of the consignment at rampur.4. the railway administration refused to pay the damages claimed so that ram kumar filed the suit out of which this revision has arisen in the court of judge, small causes, moradabad on 23-1-1949. in the plaint which he filed on 23-1-1949, ram kumar committed the same mistakes which he had committed in giving some of the particulars in his notice to therailway under section 80 of the code.....
Judgment:
ORDER

B. Mukerji, J.

1. This is an application in revision on behalf of the Union of India against a decree of a Judge, Small Causes Court at Moradabad, whereby, the learned Judge decreed a suit filed by Lala Ram Kumar for damages for non-delivery of a part of a consignment.

2. A few facts have to be stated in order to appreciate the point of law raised by Mr. Sanyal on behalf of the Union of India in this petition. A consignment of ilaychi was booked from a place called Shyam Nagar in Bengal to Rampur in Uttar Pradesh on 10-9-1948 under Railway, Receipt No. 396733. Rarh Kumar was the consignee of the aforementioned consignment. Part only of the aforementioned consignment, which consisted of three bags arrived at Rampur on 11-10-1948: two bags reached Rampur while one did not.

3. Ram Kumar served a notice on the General Manager, East Indian Railway, Calcutta under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code on 15-9-1949. In this notice Ram Kumar mentioned the name of the station of booking as Sompur Khidarpur Docks. He, however,gave the number of the railway receipt correctly. Further in the notice he gave the date of delivery as 24-9-1949 instead of 11-10-1948, which was the correct date of delivery of the consignment at Rampur.

4. The Railway Administration refused to pay the damages claimed so that Ram Kumar filed the suit out of which this revision has arisen in the Court of Judge, Small Causes, Moradabad on 23-1-1949. In the plaint which he filed on 23-1-1949, Ram Kumar committed the same mistakes which he had committed in giving some of the particulars in his notice to theRailway under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure,. It appears that on behalf of the Railway an application was made for further particulars. After this application the plaintiff, Ram Kumar, made an application for the amendment of his plaint. This amendment application was granted on 14-9-1950.

By this amendment Ram Kumar got corrections made in the plaint in regard to the place of original despatch of the consignment as also in regard to the date of the delivery of part of the consignment at Rampur. On behalf of the Railway Administration objection was taken to the amendment but the learned Judge of Small Causes overruled that objection and, as I have already said, permitted the amendment by his order dated 14-9-1950.

5. Mr. Sanyal appearing on behalf of the Union of India has raised a short point which, if accepted, goes to the very root of the case. The point which Mr. Sanyal raised was that since the notice given by Ram Kumar under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not contain those particulars which were necessary to correctly bring out the cause of action, therefore, the notice given was invalid and that being so the suit itself was not maintainable.

6. Under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure it is incumbent and obligatory on a party to give two months' notice and in that notice it is obligatory for him to state the cause of action, the name, description and place of the residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims. The cause of action in a suit of the character which Ram Kumar filed included, as one of its vital components, the fact of despatch of the goods from one particular place and their receipt at another particular place: it was also necessary in order to state the whole of the cause of action to state correct dates of despatch and delivery.

It cannot be said that the particulars which Ram Kumar had given in his notice under Section 80, correctly brought out the entire cause of action. The place of despatch was of vital importance in making up the entire cause of action and so was the correct date of delivery. There was, as we have already noticed, a mistake in both of these essential facts. Reliance was placed by Mr. Sanyal on a decision of Desai J., in Dominion of India v. Roop Chand, 1950 All LJ 595 (A). This case undoubtedly supports Mr. Sanyal's contention.

He further relied on a case of the Madras High Court--a decision by Rajamannar J. (as he then was) in Meenakshi Amma v. Province of Madras : AIR1946Mad73 (, where the learned Judge held that an error in describing the subject-matter of the suit, namely setting aside a revenue sale, as R. S. No. 722/4-b instead of R. S, No. 722/4-A is not a mere clerical error but a substantial error which vitiates the notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code.

Although the decision in Meenakshi Amma's case (A) is not directly applicable but nevertheless the principle underlying that decision is certainly available to Mr. Sanyal in support of the contention he raised. I am of the view that in a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a suit, where a plaintiff claims damages for non-delivery of a consignment booked by a Railway Administration he must state in the notice the correct place of the despatch of the goods and correctly state the dates of the despatch of the goods and the date of delivery where delivery has been effected; and all such particulars as would be necessary or helpful to the Railway Administration to trace out the consignment and to know of its progress during its journey, for all such matters are intimately connected with the cause of action.

'Cause of action' is a term that embraces in its scope a large number of facts and circumstances, &that; is why it has been called a bundle of facts on the proof of which the plaintiff can be entitled to get the relief which he seeks. In a suit for damages for non-delivery, one of the essential ingredients which a plaintiff has to prove in order to succeed in his suit for damages is that a particular consignment was in fact, despatched from a particular station. The plaintiff has further to prove that out of the consignment booked some part of it or the whole of it, as the case may be, did not arrive at its destination or where it is a case of part delivery, that delivery was taken of a part of the consignment at the receiving end on a particular date.

Any errors in the particulars indicated above would vitiate the notice. It could not, in my judgment, be said that a notice full of mistakes in regard to-vital matters could be a notice as contemplated under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That the particulars, which were wrongly given by the plaintiff, in his notice, were vital is further clear from the fact that the plaintiff himself thought it advisable to seek, an amendment of the plaint, which, it is interesting to note, was granted after the period of limitation for the suit had expired. In any event, the amendment could not, in any case, have the effect of validating the mistakes which remained unamended in the notice.

7. For the reasons given above I allow this application in revision, but under the circumstances ofthe case, direct the parties to bear their own costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //