JUDGMENT Coxe, J. - The Plaintiff in this case sued for damages on the allegation that he had booked 44 bales of cotton at a station in the E. B. S. Ry. in the Purneah district for transmission to Howrah and that 40 bales only were delivered. He made the Secretary of State the first Defendant as representative of the E. B. S. Ry. and the E. I. R. Co. the second Defendant. The suit has been dismissed. The Plaintiff has obtained this Rule on the Defendants to show cause why the order of dismissal should not be set aside. The Rule must, I think, be discharged. The suit was brought at Sealdab, though the cause of action arose partly in Purneah but mainly at Howrah, and the place of business of the second Defendant is at Howrah. The Small Cause Court Judge has held that the suit must fail against the 1st Defendant, because no notice was served in accordance with sec. 80 of the Code. A notice was served on the Collector of Purneah, but the suit was not instituted at Purneah and reading sec. 80 as a whole I think the term "district" must mean the district in which the suit is instituted and that the notice must be given to the Collector or to one of the Collectors of that district. 2. It has been argued that no notice is necessary in cases arising out of contract and reference has been made to the case of Manindra Chandra Nandi v. Secretary of State 5 C. L. J. 148 (1907). 3. The terms of the section, however, as they stand seem to me to show that notice is necessary in every case and this is the view taken in Secretary of State v. Rajlucki I. L. R. 25 Cal. 239 (1897) from which the decision in Manindra Chandra Nandi v. Secretary of State 5 C. L. J. 148 (1907) does not dissent. 4. Then finally it was argued that the suit ought, not to have been dismissed, but the plaint should have been rejected under Or. 7, r. 11 (d). That Rule obviously has no application, for there was no statement in the plaint which suggested that the suit was barred. On the contrary it was specifically stated that notice under sec. 80 had been served on the "Collector" without specifying the district. 7, r. 11 (d). That Rule obviously has no application, for there was no statement in the plaint which suggested that the suit was barred. On the contrary it was specifically stated that notice under sec. 80 had been served on the "Collector" without specifying the district. The defect was not discovered till after the Defendants had entered appearance and it was then too late to reject the plaint. 5. As against the 2nd Defendant the suit has been dismissed on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction. This view is evidently right. The 2nd Defendant objected at once to the jurisdiction. It is argued that as he did not apply for a transfer, he must be taken to have acquiesced in the trial of the suit at Sealdah. I dissent altogether from this contention. So it was the duty of the Plaintiff when this substantial objection was taken to take the necessary steps to meet it and the Defendant was not in any way bound to have the defect that he had pointed out cured for the Plaintiff's benefit. A suit at Sealdah based on a notice to the Collector of Purneah and on a cause of action arising mainly at Howrah against Defendants one of whom carries on business at Howrah seems to me wholly untenable. I think, this suit was rightly dismissed and would discharge the Rule with costs. I assess the hearing fee at I gold mohur for each Defendant. Beachcroft, J. I agree.