Coutts, J.facts of the case out of which this appeal arises are shortly as follows:

The plaintiff in the suit, Ramsaruphal Chaudhury, booked from Sonada Station on the Darjeeling Himalayan Railway, on the 17th of October 1917, 62 bags of, potatoes. The bags were booked to Mar-howra Station on the Bengal and North-Western Railway. On the 20th or 21st of November, out of the consignment of 62 bags, 26 bags only were delivered to consignee, who was the same person as the consignor. He, was told that the other bags would be delivered later when they were received. They were never received so the plaintiff sued the Darjeeling Himalayan Railway, the Eastern Bengal State Railway and the Bengal and. North-Western Railway, over whose lines the consignment should have passed, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 760 as the price of the potatoes lost and Rs. 9 as price of the bags the whole amount claimed with interest came up to Rs. 862-12-0. The suit was decreed in the Court of first instance against the Darjeeling Himalayan Railway and the Bengal and North Western Railway and each of these Railways appealed. The appeal of the Darjeeling Himalayan. Railway was successful but the appeal of the Bengal and North-Western Railway failed and this Railway has now appealed to this Court.

2. The first question for consideration is, whether the Bengal and North-Western Railway can be held liable. u/s 80 of the Railways Act (IX of 1890) any Railway on which a loss or destruction or deterioration has occurred would be liable. In this case it has been found that the loss occurred on the East Indian Railway, but the Bengal and North-Western Railway has been made liable because for the portion of the journey during which the East Indian Railway were in charge of the goods they were acting as the agents of the Bengal and North-Western Railway. Ordinarily, the goods would travel first over the Darjeeling Himalayan Railway, then over the Eastern Bengal State Railway and then be taken over by the Bengal and North Western Railway. There was, however, a breach on the Bengal and North-Western Railway line, and what actually occurred was that the goods, after leaving the Eastern Bengal Section, were handed over to the Bengal and North-Western Railway Company. That Company, on account of a breach on its line handed over the goods to the East Indian Railway with whom they had made an arrangement that, for the time being, that Railway would be their agents. The goods were lost during this portion of the journey. The Bengal and North-Western Railway are admittedly liable for the loss on their agents line and the finding that the East Indian Railway were their agents is a finding of fact which is apparently correct and with which in any case we cannot interfere in second appeal. The Bengal and North-Western Railways has, therefore, rightly been, made liable. It is contended, however, that the suit is barred by limitation, because delivery was made on the 14th of November 1917, whereas the suit was not brought before the 3rd of December 1918 and that the period of limitation is one year. It has been held, however, by the lower Appellate Court that limitation is saved by the deduction of the period of two months notice which was given to the Secretary of State and which, u/s 15(2) of the limitation Act, the plaintiff was entitled to have excluded from the period of limitation. It is contended in appeal before us that the Secretary of State was not a necessary party to the suit and that, therefore, Section 15(2) has no application. This argument is based on a misconception. The suit was brought against three Railway Companies, including the Eastern Bengal State Railway and in the base of a suit against that Railway a notice to the Secretary of State was necessary and this being so the plaintiff was undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of the period of notice to the Secretary of State. It is suggested that, because the Secretary, of State was not a necessary party to the suit as against the other two Railway Companies, the section does not apply, but this is clearly a fallcious argument. In a single suit which is properly brought against several defendants if the plaintiff is entitled to deduct a certain period from the period of limitation in respect of one defendant he is also en titled to the same period of limitation in the case of the other defendants. The suit is, therefore in my opinion, within time.

3. Even without the exclusion of this period of two months, it would, however, still be within time. The learned Subordinate Judge has taken the 14th of November 1917 as the date on which the delivery of the 26 bags was made and he has taken this date as the starting point of limitation, but this is a mistake, because delivery, as he himself says in another portion of his judgment, was made on the 20th or 21st November 1917. The suit could not be brought against the Railway Companies without issue of a notice u/s 77 of the Railways Act. This notice was given and 15 days time was given to the Railway Companies; consequently, under Sections 15(2) the plaintiff was entitled to exclude this period also and if this is excluded even without the two months allowed for notice to the Secretary of State the suit will be within time.

4. In my opinion, the suit has been rightly decided by the Courts below and I would dismiss this appeal with costs.

Adami, J.

5. I agree.