Robert Lindsay Ross, J.

1. This is an application by the plaintiff for revision of an order of the Small Cause Court Judge of Dhanbad who dismissed his suit against the East Indian Railway Company as being barred by time. It appears that 250 bags of flour were consigned to the North-Western Railway Company at Lyallpur on the 16th of October 1920 for deliver; at Jharia on the East Indian Railway Company's line. The consignment was delivered short by five bags and on the 11th of February 1922, the plaintiff brought this suit alleging that the cause of action arose in November 1920 when the short delivery was made. A letter had been received from the Acting Divisional Traffic Manager, Howrah, which was dated the 7th of September 1921, informing the petitioner that the five bags received short were lost and regretting that all enquiries to trace them had been of no avail.

2. The question is one of limitation. The learned Vakil for the petitioner contends that the case is governed by Art. 115 of the Limitation Act, or, if by Art. 30, then the date when the loss occurred must be proved by the Railway Company and in this case must be taken to be the date of the Company's letter, namely, the 7th of September 1921.

3. In support of the argument that Art. 115 applies, reference was made to the decision in Radhasham Basak v. Secretary of State (1916) 20 C.W.N. 790: 23 C.L.J. 547: 34 I.C. 130; But that was a case where the receipt of the consignment was denied and is therefore no authority in the present case. It is quite dear that the present case is governed either by Art. 30 or by Art. 31.

4. The learned Vakil for the defendant Company contends that this is a case of non-delivery and that time will run from the date when the goods ought to have been delivered and that date is fixed by the actual delivery of part of the consignment in November 1920. It was held however, by the House of Lords in Great Western Railway Company v. Wills, (1917) A.C. 148 that "non-delivery of the consignment means non-delivery of the consignment as a whole as contrasted with short delivery." This is a case of short delivery which is equivalent to loss of the portion of the consignment undelivered and the limitation is that prescribed in Art. 30. Then the question is when this loss occurred. It seems to me evident that the lions occurred when the short delivery which constituted the loss was made, that is to say in November 1920. The suit is therefore clearly out of time.

5. It was further argued that there had been an acknowledgment of liability in the letter from the Divisional Traffic Manager about the loss. Apart from the fact that the Divisional Traffic Manager has not been shown to be authorised to make any acknowledgment of liability, the letter itself so far from acknowledging liability expressly repudiates it.

6. The application is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee one gold mohur.