Skip to content


Madho Prasad Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 1517 of 1955
Judge
Reported inAIR1961All433
ActsRailways Act, 1890 - Sections 77; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 80
AppellantMadho Prasad
RespondentThe Union of India (Uoi)
Appellant AdvocateH.N. Seth, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateJ. Swarup, Adv.
DispositionRevision allowed
Excerpt:
civil - validity of joint notice - whether a combined notice under section 80 of code of civil procedure and section 77 of railways act - held, object, subject matter of the two notices are almost similar and both notice to be served on general manager - combined notice under the two sections is valid-revision allowed. - .....for damages on account of short delivery. the suit was contested on the ground inter alia that a combined notice under section 77, railways act, and section 80, c. p. c., was invalid. the contention was upheld by the court below and the suit was dismissed without going into the merits. 3. the object of a notice under section 77, railways act, is to inform the railway administration of the nature of loss etc. claimed by a person. this notice must be given within six months from the date of delivery. the object of a notice under section 80, c. p. c., is almost the same but in addition to informing the railway administration about the nature of the claim a person giving such a notice has also to notify his intention of filing a suit. but in essence and substance the subject-matter of the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

J.D. Sharma, J.

1. The short question arising in this revision is whether a combined notice under Section 77, Railways Act and Section 80, C. P. C., is valid.

2. The applicant brought the suit for damages on account of short delivery. The suit was contested on the ground inter alia that a combined notice under Section 77, Railways Act, and Section 80, C. P. C., was invalid. The contention was upheld by the court below and the suit was dismissed without going into the merits.

3. The object of a notice under Section 77, Railways Act, is to inform the railway administration of the nature of loss etc. claimed by a person. This notice must be given within six months from the date of delivery. The object of a notice under Section 80, C. P. C., is almost the same but in addition to informing the railway administration about the nature of the claim a person giving such a notice has also to notify his intention of filing a suit. But in essence and substance the subject-matter of the two notices is the same.

Under Section 80, C. P. C., as amended the notice is to be given to the General Manager to whom a notice under Section 77, Railways Act, is also to be given. A combined notice under Section 77, Railways Act, and Section 80, C. P. C., will therefore not be invalid. A similar view was taken in Moolji Bhai Maneklal and Co. v. Dominion of India, AIR 1952 Nag 22, Union of India v. Laxmi Narain, AIR 1954 Pat 424 and Dharmsi Liladhar v. Union of India, AIR 1952 Cal 439.

4. The revision is therefore allowed and the order of the court below dated the 30th August1955 is set aside and the suit is sent back fordisposal according to law. Costs shall abide thefinal result.


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