1. This application in revision arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs against the Bengal North Western Railway in the Small Cause Court at Agra. Twenty three 'bakoos' of tobacco were despatched sometime in March last to Agra Fort consigned to the plaintiffs. The weight consigned to the Railway was 101 maunds. At Agra Fort when delivery was taken the consignment was found 28 maunds short in weight and this suit was brought to recover the difference in price. The Court has found that the tobacco when despatched was raw and wet and was not securely packed. It has come to the conclusion that the shortage in weight was due most probably to the drying up of the moisture originally contained in it. The consignment did not arrive in Agra until sometime in April. The Court held that some of the shortage may be due to wastage owing to defective packing and that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the shortage was due to pilfering by the Railway Company's servants. It is argued that, under Section 76 of the Railways Act, the onus did not lie on the plaintiffs to prove this, but in this case there was a specific contract between the parties. The goods were consigned under Risk Note Form A. The note iron the record. It is stated in it that the consignment was in had condition and was liable to damage, leakage and wastage as the 'bakoos' were old and torn and the contents were wet, and the consignors agreed to hold the Railway Company harmless and free from all responsibility for the condition in which the aforesaid goods may be delivered to the consignee at destination and for any loss arising from the same. It is next argued that the Risk Note A does not properly apply to this consignment. I do not agree with this, Under these circumstances, it seems to me that I cannot interfere in revision. I, therefore, reject the application with costs.