Ross, J.:— The question in this appeal is whether the suit is barred by limitation or not. The suit was for damages for non-delivery of a bale of cloth which was despatched on the 9th of May, 1919, from-Bombay to Arrah. On the 1st of October, 1919, the plaintiff sent a notice to the Railway Company demanding the value of the goods and claiming that payment should be made within one month. Clearly, therefore, by that date the plaintiff took it that the goods ought to have been delivered and that this was reasonable is clear from the fact that the despatch from Bombay was on the 9th of May. The suit was not brought until the 15th of December, 1920 Consequently, if the Article of the Limitation Act which applies to this case is Article 80, then the suit is out of time as was held by the Munsif. The Subordinate Judge, however, applied Article 115 on the authority of Radha Sham Basak v. Secretary of State for India in Council(1). Now that decision has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Gobind Ram Marwari v. East Indian Railway Company, a case similar to the present case, where it was held that Article 31 laid down the rule of limitation applicable: see also Mali Ram v. East Indian Railway Company and Civil Revisions Nos. 154 and 155 of 1924 where the same rule has been followed. In my opinion this case is clearly governed by Article 31 of the Limitation Act and the suit was out of time. The appeal must therefore-be decreed with costs and the suit dismissed with costs throughout.
Kulwant Sahay, J.:— I agree.
Appeal decreed.