JUDGMENT : Ahmad, C.J. - This is an application filed by the Union of India, representing three Railways-the South Eastern Railway, the Eastern Railway and the Northern Railway. It arises out of a suit filed by the Plaintiff for recovery of damages from the Railway administration, on account of damage done to the potatoes consigned by him to the Railway administration on 12th April, 1960, at Juanpur for despatch to Berhampur. It appears that in all there were 205 bags of potatoes consigned on that day by the Plaintiff; and according to him, in the normal course, it should have reached its destination in ten days that means near about the 22nd April, 1960. It is however not denied that the consignment actually reached Berhampur (which falls on the South Eastern Railway) on the 2nd May, 1960. The grievance of the Plaintiff is that this delay caused in the transit of the consignment was due to negligence and misconduct on the part of the railway administration as they unnecessarily got the train detained at some stations where normally it should not have been stopped at all It is true that there is no oral evidence given on behalf of the Plaintiff, but from what has been stated by d.w. 2, examined on behalf of the railways, the following three facts are clearly established: (i) That the train did stop at Gangadhar railway station though normally it is not a station where it should have stopped. (ii) That on one side of the wagon the original seal given at Juanpur was not there. (iii) That at Berhampur the locks on two sides of the wagon were found opened. On these three facts the Court below has drawn the inference that three Railways in the course of the transit were guilty of negligence and misconduct. Accordingly, it has given a decree to the Plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 530.00 as claimed in the plaint. 2. In this Court, the main grievance made by Mr. B.K. Pal appearing for the Railways (Petitioners) is that the Court below has erred in law in not keeping in view the provision of law as laid down in Section 74-A of the Indian Railways Act. 530.00 as claimed in the plaint. 2. In this Court, the main grievance made by Mr. B.K. Pal appearing for the Railways (Petitioners) is that the Court below has erred in law in not keeping in view the provision of law as laid down in Section 74-A of the Indian Railways Act. That provision lays down: 74-A (1) When any goods tendered to a railway administration for carriage by railway: (a) are in a defective condition as a consequence of which they are liable to deterioration, leakage, wastage or damage in transit, or (b) are either defectively packed or packed in a manner not in accordance with the general or special order, if any, issued under Sub-section (2) and, as a result of such defective or improper packing, are liable to leakage, wastage or damage in transit and the fact of such condition or defective or improper packing has been recorded by the sender or his agent in the forwarding note, the railway administration shall not be responsible for any deterioration, leakage, wastage or damage, or for the condition in which such goods are available for delivery at destination, except upon proof of negligence or misconduct on the part of the railway administration or any of its Servants. (2) The Central Government may, by general or special order, prescribe the manner in which goods tendered to a railway administration for carriage by railway shall be packed. 3. It appears that in the present case the forwarding note which is Ext. B on the record did mention that "the consignment was in a bad condition and/or defectively packed as follows L/U by owner-contents perishable". Relying on this fact, stated in the forwarding note, it has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that the onus in the present case was on the Plaintiff to establish that there was misconduct and negligence on the part of the railway administration, and unless that onus was found to have been discharged, the Plaintiff should not have been held entitled to get any decree in the suit. On principle, this submission made on behalf of the Petitioners is not open to any dispute, but on the facts of the present case it has got no application, for there is a clear finding given here by the Court below that there was misconduct and negligence on the part of the Railway administration; and this finding is based on the three facts as stated above. That being so, the finding as given by the Court below cannot be held to be based on no evidence or one that has not been arrived at in accordance with law. Accordingly, in the face of that finding there is now no ground left for the submission made on behalf of the Petitioners that on the facts of the present case, the Court below, in giving a decree to the Plaintiff, was not following the law as laid down in Section 74-A of the Railways Act. That section clearly provides that the rule of onus shall be applicable only so long as there is no evidence of misconduct or negligence brought on the record by the Plaintiff and accepted by the Court. Here there is clear evidence to that effect, as found by the Court, and a finding too, based on that evidence. Therefore, in my opinion there is no substance in the contention made on behalf of the Railway administration Further, even if it be conceded for the sake of argument? that there was some error committed by the Court below in its approach to the provision of law as laid down in Section 74-A of the Railways Act, that can at best amount only to an illegality and not to an error of jurisdiction in the exercise of the power vested in the Court as contemplated by Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure. In that view of the matter also, therefore, the order under revision is not open to be challenged in this petition. In the result, therefore, the application is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case there will be no order for costs so far as this Court is, concerned. Final Result : Dismissed