P. N. MOOKERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THIS is the plaintiff's appeal, arising out of a suit for recovery of compensation for non-delivery of six bales of cotton piece goods, sent by the defendant Railways. ( 2 ) THE consignment was booked at Ahmedabad under Invoice No. 2445 and Railway Receipt No. B/35939, dated February 29, 1952, on the Western Railway. The delivery was to be given at Shalimar on the Eastern Railway. There was non-delivery of the entire consignment and, on July 8, 1952, notice under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act was served. This was followed by another notice under the same Section on August 18, 1953. Thereafter, it appears, there was prolonged correspondence between the plaintiff and the defendant Railways, ending in December, 1953, when for the first time, the plaintiff's claim was refused or repudiated by the Railway Administration. Thereafter, on August 28, 1954, notice was served under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and, on December 3, 1954, the instant suit was brought on a claim of Rs. 13,685/15/9p. , including price, excise duty, ten per cent. compensation and other costs. ( 3 ) THE suit was contested by the Railway Administration and their principal defence on the merits was that it was a case of loss of the consignment by running train theft not due to any negligence on the part of the Railway concerned and there was also a plea of limitation. There were other defences, which are not material for our present purpose. ( 4 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge held in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant on all the defences, including limitation, except on the merits, as his finding was that, on the evidence it had not been proved that the Railway Administration was negligent to entitle the plaintiff to a decree in the present suit and, upon that ground, the plaintiff's suit was dismissed with costs. ( 5 ) FROM this decree of dismissal, the present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff and it has been contended by Mr. Dutt, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff appellant, that, on the evidence before the Court, the proper finding ought to have been that the Railway Administration was guilty of negligent conduct in respect of the plaintiff's consignment and, accordingly, the plaintiff was entitled to succeed on the merit. Dutt, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff appellant, that, on the evidence before the Court, the proper finding ought to have been that the Railway Administration was guilty of negligent conduct in respect of the plaintiff's consignment and, accordingly, the plaintiff was entitled to succeed on the merit. ( 6 ) ON behalf of the respondent Railways, this submission of Mr. Dutt was contested and the view of the learned Subordinate Judge on this point in favour of the defendant was sought to be supported. Mr. Basu further urged that, in any event, the plaintiff's suit must be held to be barred by limitation, be it under Article 30 or under Article 31 of the Indian Limitation Act. ( 7 ) ON the merits, on the materials before the Court, we are inclined to hold, on the evidence of the railway witnesses themselves, particularly the Guard concerned, that there was negligence on the part of the defendant Railways, so far as the particular consignment was concerned. It appears from the Guards' evidence that he detected between Kharagpur and Jagpore that one bale was lying on the left side of the train. He had a suspicion that the said bale might have fallen out of his train, which made him pull up the train at Jagpore. There it was discovered that this particular wagon had been tampered with and the seal had been broken and the door was tied with a Gomcha. All that was done was to get it resealed and rivetted, even on the Guard's evidence and the train was allowed to start and there is no evidence that any step was taken for any investigation or with regard to the bale, which was found to be lying outside the train in between Kharagpur and Jagpore. The Guard's evidence further proceeds that, thereafter, the train stopped at Shyamalchak but there also it does not appear that any further check-up was made. The Guard's evidence further proceeds that, thereafter, the train stopped at Shyamalchak but there also it does not appear that any further check-up was made. The Guard then continues that there was a further stoppage at Haur without any further investigation and after starting from Haur, the train suddenly stopped again, immediately after leaving that station, on account of some defect in the vacuum (brake) and, the vacuum being restored, the train started on its journey but it was pulled up at Panchkura and there it was detected that the same wagon had been further tempered with and the seal had again been broken. Even thereafter, it does not appear, on the evidence, that any sufficient attention was paid to this mater or to see whether any loss had been incurred or there had been any injury to the goods in the wagon. ( 8 ) IN the above state of the evidence and, particularly, in view of the contradictions, on the point of checking up, between the Guard's evidence and the evidence of the Assistant Station Master at Jagpore and also at Panchkura, it is difficult to hold that the Railway Administration has succeeded in establishing that they had taken, with regard to the disputed consignmen, the amount of care, which, under the law, they were obliged to take in regard to the same. ( 9 ) ON the merits, therefore in our opinion, the plaintiff will be entitled to a finding in his favour but, unfortunately for him, his present suit must fail on the ground of limitation in view of the recent Supreme Court decision, reported in Boota Mal v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1716 . ( 10 ) IT is true that, in view of the correspondence between the parties and the first refusal or first repudiation, coming only in December 1963, the present suit, on the authority of the decision of this Court in Rameswarlal Sreenarain, a Firm v. Union of India, AIR 1962 Cal 175 , and a series earlier decisions of this and other High Courts, would haven been quite within time, but, unfortunately for the plaintiff, a different view has been pronounced in the above Supreme Court decision and, although there may be something to be said in favour of Mr. Dutt's submission that such a view might lead to injustice in many cases, the law having been declared by the above Supreme Court decision, we are bound to follow it and uphold the defence plea of limitation in the instant case. ( 11 ) THE decree of dismissal, passed by the learned trial Judge, will, therefore, be affirmed, though on a different ground, namely, of limitation, and this appeal will fail and it will be dismissed. There will be no order for costs, either in this Court or in the Court below. Appeal dismissed.