ORDER This is a civil revision and arises out of a small cause suit for compensation for non-delivery of goods by the defendant 1 Railway Company, the carriers, to whom the goods were consigned for carriage to Imphal on 17-12-1949. Since the Railway Company failed to deliver the goods to the plaintiff the consignee, the plaintiff took up the matter with the Deputy Chief Commercial Manager and by a letter dated 23-6-1951 (Ext. 1), the Deputy Chief Commercial Manager offered Rs. 485/1/- in full and final settlement of the claim and asked the plaintiff to sign the letter enclosed by him and to send it along with the Railway Receipt, if the plaintiff accepted the offer, and on receipt of the same a cheque would be issued in favour of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, he complied with the same on 26-6-1951, and a copy of that letter was placed on record and is Ext. 3. The plaintiff did not however file the Postal Receipt or acknowledgment for this letter sent by him, which was alleged to have been sent by Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due. 2. The claim was based by the plaintiff on this offer and acceptance for Rs. 485/1/- since the Railway Company did not make any payment thereafter. The suit proceeded ex parte against the defendants, and the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court dismissed the same, because he found that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he had accepted the offer by not producing the Postal Receipt or the acknowledgment for the letter Ext. 3, which he alleged he had sent in acceptance of the offer made by the Railway Company. 3. In this revision, the Railway Company and the Union of India (Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2) put in an appearance through a counsel who urged that the claim was in any case barred under Art. 31 of the Limitation Act, and therefore there was no substance in this revision petition. In my opinion also this is the most important point involved, and if that point is found against the plaintiff then it will not be necessary to go into any other question. 4. It is obvious that by the letter, Ext. In my opinion also this is the most important point involved, and if that point is found against the plaintiff then it will not be necessary to go into any other question. 4. It is obvious that by the letter, Ext. 1 it became plain that the goods in question could not be delivered to the plaintiff and therefore the claim of the plaintiff, which was nothing but a claim for compensation for non-delivery would be governed by Art. 31 of the Limitation Act, and the fact that an offer for paying the compensation was made will not make any difference, because in spite of that and even if it be held that the plaintiff had accepted it, the nature of the claim will not be changed. If therefore Art. 31 applies then die claim of the plaintiff was clearly time barred when the suit was filed on 31-7-1956. 5. My attention was drawn to letter Ext. 4 dated 1-10-1951 from the Deputy Chief Commercial Manager in which he acknowledged the receipt of plaintiffs letter dated 27-9-1951, and stated that the subject was still under enquiry with the foreign Railways, and the result would be communicated to the plaintiff on completion of the same. It was urged on the basis of this letter, that limitation did not commence to run because there was an assurance that the matter was being enquired into. There is some case law also to support the view, that when the plaintiff was being assured that the matter was being enquired into and the plaintiff had hopes of getting delivery, a claim filed more than a year after the date when the goods ought to have been delivered, would not be time barred. But the present case is not similar to those cases, in which the plaintiff was not informed that the goods could not be delivered. In the present case as already stated Ext. 1 dated 23-6-1951 must have made it clear to the plaintiff that the Railway Company could not deliver the goods, and therefore limitation commenced to run, from at least that date, and once limitation commences to run, it could not stop except by a fresh agreement. But that was not so in the present case and the plaintiff having not filed a copy of the letter dated 27-9-1951 to which Ext. But that was not so in the present case and the plaintiff having not filed a copy of the letter dated 27-9-1951 to which Ext. 4 was a reply, it is not even known in what circumstances that reply was given. 6. No explanation was offered by the plaintiff as to why the Postal Receipt or the acknowledgment for plaintiffs reply dated 26-6-1951 accepting the offer could not be filed by the plaintiff, and in the absence of any satisfactory explanation, it really becomes doubtful whether such an acceptance was really communicated to the Railway Company, but even if it be found that such an acceptance was communicated, then also the claim would be out of time because, in that case, it would be governed by Art. 115, and clearly enough the suit was filed more than three years after the breach of that agreement or contract to pay. 7. The result is that there is no substance in this revision petition and it is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.