Thadani C. J. - This is an application de­scribed as an application under S. 115, Civil P. C. arising out of a judgment and decree passed by a Judge of the Small Cause Court, Silchar, dated 31-1-1950. Manifestly the description of the appli­cation under s. H8, Civil P. C. is erroneous. It is an application under S- 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. ' [2] One Dr. Hussain sued the B. B. C. I. Ely. the Assam Ely. and the Union of India claiming a sum of Rs. 40 from the defendants for the less of some surgical goods which were booked on 19-7-48 from a station called Wadi Bandar on the G. I. P. Railway to Silchar in the State of Assam. The G. I. P. Ely. has not been sued. [3] It appears that when the goods were being carried by the E. I. Ely.-which again has not been sued-they were detained at a Land Customs post called Naihati, a Railway Station on the B. I. Ely., on 2-8-48. The reason for the detention of the goods was that the consignee had not observ­ed all the Land Customs formalities for the movement of goods through Pakistan. Ultimately the goods disappeared. [4] Under 8. 80, Indian Railways Act, a built for compensation for the loss or destruction or deterioration of goods carried by a Railway may be brought either against the Railway Administra­tion to which the goods were delivered or against the Railway Administration on whose railway the loss, injury, destruction or deterioration occurred. The present suit, however, was not brought either against the Railway Administra­tion to which the goods were delivered, namely, the G. I. P. Ely., or the E. I. Ely., on whose railway the loss occurred. The suit was brought against the B. B C. I. Ely. and the Assam Ely. Section 80, Indian Railways Act, has not been affected by the Indian Railways Act (Adaptation) Order, 1948, and the position, therefore, as regards S. 80, Indian Railways Act, is the same today as it was before the Indian Independence Act. [5] In view of the fact that the Railway Ad­ministration to which the goods were delivered and the Railway Administration on whose Railway the loss occurred, have not been sued, it follows that no decree can be passed against the defen­dants in the present suit. [5] In view of the fact that the Railway Ad­ministration to which the goods were delivered and the Railway Administration on whose Railway the loss occurred, have not been sued, it follows that no decree can be passed against the defen­dants in the present suit. The learned Small Cause Court Judge was, therefore, in error in decreeing the suit against the Union of India as owning the B. B. C I. and the Assam Railways. It is true that the B. B. C. I. and the Assam Railway are also owned by the Union of India, but that would not make the Union of India liable if the goods were not delivered to the B. B C. I. Ely. or the loss did not occur on the Assam Ely The loss occurred on the E. I. Ely which has not been sued. [6] This aspect of the case has been dealt with by the Nagpur High Court in the case of Domi­nion of India v Firm Museram Kishunprasad, A. I. R. (37) 1950, Nag. 85. Having regard to the plain terms of S. 80, Railways Act, with respect, we follow the decision of the Nagpur High Court in the case to which we have referred and allow this revision application. [7] The result is that we set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Small Cause Court Judge and dismiss the plff's suit with costs throughout. [8] Ram Labhaya J. - I agree. Revision allowed.