D.K. Kapur, J.
(1) The petitioner brought a suit for the recovery of Rs. 391.00 on the allegetion that some goods were booked from Delhi to Tatanagar by parcel way bill No. 536363 but did not reach destination. Before the suit was filed, a notice was given under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 78B of the Indian Railways Act.
(2) It appears that at the hearing of the suit before the Additional Judge, Small Cause Court a contention was raised that the notice under Section 78 B of the Indian Indian Railways Act and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was invalid which has been accepted on the ground that the notice stated that the goods had been dispatched from Delhi Railway Station whereas they had been booked from Delhi Sabzimandi City Booking Agency. It was held that because proper particulars were not given, the defendant did not make the necessary enquiry.
(3) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The question whether the notice is invalid and what is its effect has ro depend on the nature of the omission or error, Learned Counsel for the tespondent cited Mjs. Chaturbhai v. Union of India, : AIR1961Pat334 and Union of India v. Nageshwar Prasad, : AIR1964Pat373 , to submit that in both these cases it was held that if the wrong railway station was mentioned, the notice was bad, and hence, the suit has to fail I may here mention that these judgments were based on an earlier judgment of the Patna High Court reported as Mohammad Farooq v. Governor General : AIR1949Pat93 , wherein a notice was held to be valid, because the mistake which was regarding the date of the dispatch of goods was bona fide. So, the real question turns on whether the error in the notice is one which is bona fide, and also, one which had the effect of failing to give sufficient particulars about the goods booked.
(4) In order to satisfy myself regarding the validity of the present notice I have examined the same. It is note-worthy that the notice which is Exhibit Public Witness . 2/10 states not only the fact that the goods were booked from Railway Station Delhi to Tatanagar, but also gave a number of other particulars regarding correspondence. The correspondence in question is then appended c!ong with the notice and the following words occur :
'FORyour convenience and replay reference, copies of the claim, letter received from Calcutta and of the Pwb No. 536383 dt. 23.12.70. are attached with this notice to avoid further delay'.
(5) Thus, the notice was acompanied by a copy of the document itself, showing the full details regarding the booking. It cannot, thereforee, be said that the Railway authorities could not make enquiries because they did not know the namo of the station. In fact, there is one further very significant circumstance in this case which rather negatives the contention or the Union of India. The name Sabzimandi is not mentioned in the parcel way bilI. in fact, the document in question says 'DEMS' to TATANAGAR' Nobody reading this document could, thereforee, say that it was necessary for the Plaintiff to state that the goods had been booked from Sabzimandi Railway, Station. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the letters 'DLMS' stand for Delhi Sabzimandi. If the learned counsel for the railway can understand the meaning, then clearly they part itself could also understand from which Station the goods had been booked. I think, that this was no ground for rejecting the notice u/s 80 of the Code, which was sufficiently detailed and particularised to give all adequate information necessary to discover the name of the station 'DLMS' and other particulars regarding the goods.
(6) As it happens, the Plaint also states that the goods were dispatched by passenger train from Delhi Railway Station to Tatanagar. Normally, the trains going from Delhi to Tatanagar start at Delhi Main Railway Station and not at Sabzimandi Railway Station. So, the Plaintiff does not seem to be wrong in saying that the goods were carried from Delhi Railway Station to Tatanagar. It may be that the letters 'DLMS' occurring in the parcel way bill may mean Delhi Station Main rather than Delhi Sabzimandi. In fact, this whole plea is extremely technical and not worthy of judicial notice in a case which seeks to recover oniy a small sun of Rs. 391.00. On the other hand, it may be the railway authoities who liavs a booking office at Sabzimandi for carriage or goods from Delhi Railway Station. .Ali the connespondence appears to Indicare that the goods were sent from Delhi Railway station which is also the normal station for sending goods by passenger train from Delhi 10 Taranagar. I do not think thai any train from Sabzimandi station goes to Tatanagar' direct. Even if it does, the mere description of the ration as Delhi Railway station should not change the nature of the suit, and, in this case, it was certainly no ground for' the respondent being unable to find the Particulars of the goods particularly as copies of the entire correspondence and the pared way bill had been sent along with the notice
(7) The result would. be that this revision would be accepted and the order dismissing the suit would be set aside. As the Court has given no judgment on the merits, the matter is remanded back to the Additional Judge, Small Cause Court for hearing arguments on the merits and deciding the suit.