Ross, J.The question in this appeal is whether the suit is barred by limitation or not. This suit was for damages for non-delivery of a bale of cloth which was des-patched 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 look it that the goods ought to have been delivered and, that this was reasonable is clear from the fact that the des-patch from Bombay was oh the 9th of May. The suit was not brought until the 15th of December, 1920. Con-sequently if the Article of the Limitation Act which applies to this case is Article 31 then the suit is out of time as was held by the Munsif. The Subordinate Judge, however, applied Article 115 on the authority of Radhd Sham Basak v. Secretary of State for India 34 Ind. Cas. 130 : 20 C.W.N. 790 : 44 C. 16 : 23 C.L.J. 547. Now that decision has been; considered by a Division Bench of this. Court in Gobind Earn Maruxiri v. East India Railway Company (S.A. No. 985: of 1921), a case similar to the present. case, M-here it was held that Article 31. laid down the rule of limitation applicable see also liameshwar Eass Mali Ham v.E.I. Ry. Co. 71 Ind. Cas. 565 : 4 P.L.T. 331 : A.I.R.(1923) (Pat.) 298 . 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.

2. I agree.