JUDGMENT : Tudball, J. This is an application in revision and has arisen out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-applicant in the Court of Small Causes against the Manager of the G.I.P. Railway and the Agent of the E.I. Railway in the following circumstances. The plaintiff is a wine-dealer of Allahabad. In pursuance of an order sent by him, a firm in Bombay handed over to the G.I.P. Railway a consignment of wine well packed in boxes. On the edges of the boxes were small metal clips and round the boxes were placed the usual pieces of wire so sealed that the box could not be opened without either breaking the wire or the seal. In due course the consignment arrived at Allahabad and the plaintiff went to the Railway station to take delivery. On arriving there he found that there was a difference between the weight of the consignment as entered in the railway receipt and the actual weight found on realignment at Allahabad. There was a difference of twenty-seven seers. Externally, as is clear from the note made by the court below in whose presence the boxes were finally examined and opened, the seals and the wires were intact and the only thing noticeable in the case of two boxes was that some of the little clips were loose. The plaintiff demanded that before he took delivery of the consignment the officer in charge of the goods station should open the boxes and examine the consignments and should give him, what has throughout this case been designated as, an “open delivery.” He also apparently asked that the goods clerk should make a note in his books about the shortage of weight. The goods clerk refused to give him the open delivery. The plaintiff refused to take delivery unless his demand was granted. An examination of his plaint shows that the whole dispute raged round the so-called open delivery. The plaintiff considered that he had a legal right to force the railway company to open the boxes and examine the contents in his presence at the goods-shed. The company or rather the goods-clerk admittedly refused to da anything of the sort. The goods had been purchased in the beginning of December with a view to their sale during the Christmas season. The company or rather the goods-clerk admittedly refused to da anything of the sort. The goods had been purchased in the beginning of December with a view to their sale during the Christmas season. The plaintiff asked the Traffic Superintendent by letter to order the clerk to grant his demand and give him an “open delivery.” He also pointed out that he wanted the goods quickly as they were required for the Christmas sale. He received no reply. Christmas passed and the goods were lying at the goods shed. He then instituted the present suit in which he claimed the value of the wine together with Rs. 51 damages for the wrongful act of the railway in refusing to give him an “open delivery.” The consignment of wine was taken into court and examined there. It then came to light that the weight entered in the railway receipt was an error and there was no actual shortage. The boxes were intact and showed no signs of having been tampered with. The court below dismissed the plaintiff's suit for damages, ordered the consignment to be made over to him and ordered him to pay the railway freight due thereon. As to costs, it directed each party to bear its own. The applicant's plea in this Court is that he was entitled to some damages for the wrongful action of the railway. The question is whether or not the railway company has committed any wrong by reason of which damage has accrued to the plaintiff. The wrong alleged is the refusal to grant the “open delivery.” The learned vakil for the plaintiff is unable to show me any rule of the law or any rule of the railway under which in circumstances like the present, a consignee can demand that the railway company shall open a consignment and allow him to examine it before giving up the railway receipt. He admits that the consignment had been re-weighed on arrival. It cannot be contended for a single instant that the consignment showed any external marks of damage. It seems to me that the plaintiff's action, though entirely bona fide, was mistaken. He admits that the consignment had been re-weighed on arrival. It cannot be contended for a single instant that the consignment showed any external marks of damage. It seems to me that the plaintiff's action, though entirely bona fide, was mistaken. What he ought to have done was to enter on the back of the receipt the fact that the actual weight was less than that entered in this receipt and also the fact that the goods-clerk had refused to open and examine the consignment. He should then have signed the receipt, tendered the freight and taken delivery. It would then have been open to him to examine the consignment either at the goods-shed in the presence of the goods-clerk or elsewhere and he then would have had a good case against the company for recovery of damages for the loss sustained, if any. The consignment was carried at railway risk. Instead of doing this, the plaintiff himself refused to take delivery. He, no doubt, was under the impression by reason of certain entries made by certain wine-merchants in their catalogues that he was legally entitled to have the consignment opened before he took delivery. In this, as far as I can see, he was mistaken. There was an analogous case decided in this Court on the Ist of July, 1912, [Kokamal v. Great Indian Peninsula railings.], where the plaintiff refused to take delivery of his consignment because the railway company refused at the time of delivery to enter in their register the shortage of weight. The plaintiff in that case was under a mistaken idea that the railway company was bound to enter in its register a something which the plaintiff desired should be so entered. Even in the present case the plaintiff also asked for a similar entry to be made; but this was not the real reason for his refusal to take delivery. He refused to take delivery simply on the ground that he was entitled in law to an “open delivery” as described above. In my opinion, there is nothing to show that he was legally entitled to this class of delivery. He refused to take delivery simply on the ground that he was entitled in law to an “open delivery” as described above. In my opinion, there is nothing to show that he was legally entitled to this class of delivery. The Railway Company, where a shortage of weight is discovered, usually agrees to the opening and examination of the consignment for the purpose of its own protection and this no doubt has led to the idea that the consignee can demand that this shall be done if he so desires. There being apparently a shortage of weight in the present case, a little tact on the part of the authorities at Allahabad would have prevented the present trouble. After all, though the plaintiff might not have a legal right to demand it, it was not an unreasonable demand. He was clearly acting in good faith and it was equally for the benefit of the railway company and himself that he made the demand. But the company was entitled to stand upon its legal rights and this demand was one that was not enforcible in law. The result is that I cannot give the applicant any decree for damages. The application for revision is, therefore, rejected. In the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs. CHAMIER and RAFIQ, JJ. On the 19th of September 1909 and the 4th of October, 1909, two consignments of chillies were handed to the North-Western Railway to be carried to Agra Fort. The consignments reached Agra Fort on October 19th or 20th, 1909. The plaintiffs case is that when his agent went to take delivery, he found the bags loose. He requested the station-staff to re-weigh and allow him to make a note of the shortage, if any. The station-staff refused to allow this to be done. A long correspondence followed and ultimately the railway authorities sold the chillies on March 8th, 1910, at Delhi After deducting their charges, they offered the balance to the plaintiff who declined to accept it. The present suit was instituted on November 23rd, 1910. The station-staff refused to allow this to be done. A long correspondence followed and ultimately the railway authorities sold the chillies on March 8th, 1910, at Delhi After deducting their charges, they offered the balance to the plaintiff who declined to accept it. The present suit was instituted on November 23rd, 1910. The defence was that the bags were in good condition and that the railway authorities had no objection to the plaintiff noting in their books any shortage in weight provided that he at the same time made a note as to the condition of the bags, viz., that they were intact The court of first instance found that the bags were in fact loose. It has not found that the bags were torn. It found that the plaintiff was entitled to have the chillies re-weighed and that the railway authorities had wrongfully refused to re-weigh them but it dismissed the suit on the ground, that the defendant, the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company was not liable to be sued for non-delivery of the goods and that the suit was barred by limitation. It held also that the suit was in reality a suit on account of non-delivery of the chillies. His decision was affirmed by the Subordinate Judge and this is a second appeal by the plaintiff. There can be no doubt that according to the decision in Chunni Lal v. The Nizam's Guaranteed State Railway Company Limited, [1907] I.L.R., 29 All., 228 no suit for damages for non-delivery of the goods was maintainable against the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company. A suit of the description could only have been brought against the North-Western Railway Company with whom the contract was made. The plaintiff contends that his suit is for damages for an independent tort committed by the G.I.P. Railway Company, and that his cause of action accrued in March, 1910, when the G.I.P. Railway Company sold the chillies. According to the findings of the courts below the plaintiff declined to take delivery of the chillies, unless they were re-weighed and he was allowed to make a note in the Company's books that the bags were torn and loose. In the first place, the bags were not torn though they were loose. Next the plaintiff was not entitled to make any entries in the Company's books. In the first place, the bags were not torn though they were loose. Next the plaintiff was not entitled to make any entries in the Company's books. He could have made representations in any other manner that he chose to the railway authorities, but he did not do so. It is quite clear that the real reason why the plaintiff declined to take delivery of the chillies was not that the railway staff refused to re-weigh them, but that they refused to re-weigh them and allow the plaintiff to make remarks in their books which, according to them were incorrect. It seems to us that the plaintiff was in the wrong from the very beginning. He made an unreasonable demand to the company and it was this demand which ultimately led to the non-delivery of the goods. The G.I.P. Railway Company as agents of the N.W. Railway Company, were entitled to refuse to deliver the goods on the condition insisted upon by the plaintiff. The plaintiff should have taken delivery of the goods and have paid the freight. As he failed to pay the freight and take delivery of the chillies, the Railway Company were entitled after due notice to the plaintiff to sell the goods. In this view of the case, no question of the applicability of articles 30 and 31 of the first schedule of the Limitation Act arises. In our opinion, the only suit that could have been brought was one against the North-Western Railway Company for the non-delivery of the goods. On the findings of the courts below even such a suit would have failed. This appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.