Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 80

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 15(2)

Law: Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)

Section: 106

Law: Railways Act, 1890

Section: 77,72(1),75,Schedule2,72,76

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 80-Substantial compliance enough-Literal construction leading to absurdity to be avoided-Notice need not set out that Railway Administra­tion has been served with notice under S. 77, Railways Act (IX of 1890)-Notice based on non-delivery of goods, plaint based on loss-Discrepancy would not render suit liable to dismissal-S. 80 C. P. C. and S. 15 (2), Limitation Act-New for classification in case of several successors-in-interest having to serve notices under S. 80. Notices of action under section 80, C. P. C. should not be regarded like plaints and substantial compliance should be regarded as sufficient. Literal interpretation of section leading to absurdity should be avoided. For instance it would be immaterial if the Railway Station at which goods were delivered for despatch is described in notice as Karachi instead of Karachi Bunder if the original Railway receipt had been received by the defendant from the plaintiff. Notice under section 77 Railways Act is not a part of cause of action but only a preliminary to the institution of the suit ; notice under section 80 C. P. C. therefore need not set out that requirement of section 77 has been complied 1with inasmuch as there is no bar to the giving of notice under section 80 before the filing of a claim under section 77. Where the notice under section 80 was based on non­delivery of goods and the plaint as drafted was grounded on loss, the discrepancy did not render the suit liable to dismissal. The admission as to loss was only gratuitous, which had only relieved the defendant of a burden and by which the defendant had not in any way been prejudiced. Reading section 80 C. P. C. and section 15 (2), Limitation Act together, it becomes clear in case of several successors­ in-interest having to serve notices under section 80, that either it should be clarified in section 80 C. P. C. that it does not bar a suit by the successor-in-interest of a person who has already served a notice, or section 15 (2) of the Limitation Act should be so amended as to exclude the period of all notices served by predecessors-in-interest of the person suing. The former appears to be the proper…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492