V. B. RAJU, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a revision application by the Western Railway and the Union of India challenging in revision a decree passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division Petlad decreeing Small Cause Suit No. 296 of 1959 filed by the opponent claiming compensation for non-delivery of one bag of tobacco out of 32 bags consigned from Agas to Petlad. On 16 31 bags were delivered and one bag was not delivered. ( 2 ) THE learned Judge rejected the contention that the suit which was filed on 13-8-1959 was barred by limitation in view of Article 31 of Schedule I to the Limitation Act. In revision it is contended that this view is erroneous. ( 3 ) ARTICLE 31 of Schedule I to the Limitation Act reads as follows : ( 4 ) NOW the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants in revision is that the limitation starts to run from the date on which 31 bags were delivered and 32nd bag not delivered that is from 16-3-1958 and that as the suit was filed on 13-8-1959 it was filed more than one year after the date when limitation commenced. This contention was not accepted by the lower Court. The learned counsel for the opponent relied on Madan Lal v. Union of India A. I. R. 1959 Patna 165 In addition the learned counsel for the opponent relies on Rameswarlal v. Union of India A. I. R. 1962 Calcutta 175 ( 5 ) ORDINARILY the expression when the goods ought to be delivered used in third column of the Article 31 of Sch. Limitation Act would be in the instant case 16 because all the thirty-two bags should have been delivered on one date namely 16-3-58 hut only 31 bags delivered. It is the case of the plaintiff that all the 32 bags should have been delivered at the same time when 31 bags were delivered the 32 bag also should have been delivered and therefore the expression when the goods ought to be delivered would mean 16-3-58 on which date 31 bags were delivered. ( 6 ) IN the Patna case it was observed that the expression when the goods ought to be delivered used in Articles 31 has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case. With respect I agree with this observation. ( 6 ) IN the Patna case it was observed that the expression when the goods ought to be delivered used in Articles 31 has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case. With respect I agree with this observation. But the learned Judge of the Patna High Court further observed as under :if after non-delivery of the goods the plaintiff does not make a demand for delivery of the goods but makes a claim of compensation for the goods in accordance with sec. 77 of the Railways Act it cannot be said that because the plaintiff had made no demand for the delivery of the non-delivered goods but only a claim for compensation which resulted in the long and protracted correspondence between him and the railway authorities ending ultimately in the railway expressing its inability to accede to the claim of the plaintiff limitation should run not from the date when the railway finally refused to accept the claim of the plaintiff but from the date when the goods in the ordinary course ought to have been delivered. ( 7 ) WITH respect it is difficult to agree with these observations. The fact that the consignor or consignee enters into a long correspondence with the railway regarding the compensation payable cannot affect the expression when the goods ought to be delivered. The correspondence relates not to be delivery of the goods but to compensation in terms of money and therefore such correspondence would not affect the date when the goods were to be delivered. If however in the correspondence a claim is made for the missing article and the railway replies that the claim is receiving attention and that inquiries are in progress to find the missing article then limitation would run from the date when the railway informs the plaintiff that the missing article has not been found and will not be delivered because in the case of a missing article it is the duty of the railway to search for the missing article and to deliver the missing article after it is found. In such a case the expression when the goods ought to be delivered used with reference to the missing article would mean the date on which the railway replies to the plaintiff that the missing article has not been found and will not be delivered. In such a case the expression when the goods ought to be delivered used with reference to the missing article would mean the date on which the railway replies to the plaintiff that the missing article has not been found and will not be delivered. That is exactly what happened in A. I. R. 1962 Cal. 175. In that case the plaintiff received only two bales out of 15 bales and the Railway Administration intimated the plaintiff that they were inquiring about the whereabouts of the missing bales. The observations of the learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court therefore do not apply to the facts of the instant case where the plaintiff in his notice Ex. 30 dated 11-6-58 merely claimed compensation for money and in answer to that notice the railway intimated that the matter was receiving attention. This means that the claim for compensation made by the plaintiff was receiving attention. There was no statement of the railway that inquiries were being made as to the whereabouts of the missing articles. In such a case therefore limitation would run from the date when a part of the consignment was delivered and a part not delivered. In this case this date is 16-3-58 and hence the suit filed on 13-8-59 would be barred by limitation. ( 8 ) THE revision application is therefore allowed and the plaintiffs suit will be dismissed. There will be no order as to costs of the suit and of the revision application. Application allowed. .