ORDER
Shambhu Prasad Singh, J.
1. This application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is by the plaintiff. His suit for recovery of Rs. 282.03 on account of non-delivery of one basket of betel leaves consigned from Howrah on the Eastern Railway for delivery to him at Chapra on the North Eastern Railway has been dismissed. The Small Cause Court has held in favour of the plaintiff on all the points, but one. After overruling most of the objections raised on behalf of the Railway in its written statement that court has held–
“The claim amounting to Rs. 255/- as price of one basket is allowed. The packing and other charges have been claimed at Rs. 6/- which is rather excessive and it Is reduced to Rs. 3/- only, As regards the railway freight Ext. 3 is the Railway receipt which supports the claim of Rs. 13.03 paise. The railway freight is, therefore, allowed. So far as the cost of notice is concerned, it is not legally admissible and this is disallowed.”
After having held, so, the learned Small Cause Court Judge proceeded to examine whether the plaintiff had a cause of action for the suit and dismissed the suit relying on a single Judge decision of Allahabad High Court in Dominion of India v. Roop Chand (1950 All LJ 595) as, in his opinion, the notice under Section 80 of the Civil P. C. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) was illegal and invalid for it mentioned the number of the railway receipt as 387916 though really the number was 387919.
2. Undoubtedly, the learned Small Cause Court Judge has taken too technical a view and, to use the language of the Supreme Court in the decisions in Union of India v. Jeewan Ram (AIR 1958 SC 905); State of Madras v. C, P. Agencies (AIR 1960 SC 1309) and S. N. Dutt v. Union of India (AIR 1961 SC 1449), failed to interpret the notice sent by the plaintiff with the commonsense needed for the purpose. In Harish Chand v. Union of India (AIR 1962 All 307), a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that a suit against the railway administration cannot fail merely becausa a wrong number of the railway receipt Ss given in the notice and that would not invalidate the notice, The single Judge decision in Dominion of India v. Roop Chand (1950 All LJ 595) (supra), therefore, stands overruled by a bench decision of that very court,
3. Mr. P. K. Bose, learned counsel for the opposite party, has placed reliance on a single Judge decision of this court In Mohammed Farooq v. Governor General in Council (AIR 1949 Pat 93) and a bench decision in Chaturbhai Bhailalbhai v. Union of India (AIR 1961 Pat 334). In neither of these decisions the mistake in the notice was as to the number of the receipt. Therefore, they are not relevant for consideration so far the facts of this case are concerned. In the plaint the number of the railway receipt was correctly given and it cannot be said that the defendant-opposite party have been prejudiced in any way by wrong mentioning of the number of the receipt in the notice under Section 80 of the Code. The fact that the defendants-opposite party could not consider the claim of the plaintiff favourably on receipt of the notice before institution of the suit would only be relevant for the purposes of the cost. After the correct railway receipt number was given in the plaint, I would rather say that it was unfair on the part of the railway administration to have contested the suit.
4. In the result, the application is allowed and the plaintiff’s suit is decreed to the extent as indicated in the passage of tine judgment of the court below quoted earlier, in this judgment. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to cost either for the court below or for this court, However, the plaintiff-petitioner will be entitled to interest pendente lite and future at the rate of 6 per cent per annum simple on the amount decreed from the date of the institution of the suit till its realisation.