JUDGMENT Omprakash Trivedi, J. - This petition in revision has been filed by the Union of India against Krishna Prasad Katiyar. The plaintiff-opposite party Krishna Prasad Katiyar had filed a suit in the court of Munsif, Sitapur, acting as Judge, Small Causes for recovery of damages for non-delivery of goods, which were booked at Bombay and delivered for carriage to Western Railway, Bombay. The goods were subsequently to be carried over on the North Eastern Railway and were to be delivered at Sitapur. The goods, however, were never delivered. It may be mentioned here that the suit was filed against the Union of India through the General Manager, Western Railway, Bombay. An objection was raised on be-half of the Union of India before the trial court that the Sitapur courts had no jurisdiction to try the suit. This objection was over-ruled and the Munsif held that he had jurisdiction. The Union of India thereupon appealed to the District Judge, Sitapur, challenging the finding of the Munsif on the question of jurisdiction and this appeal was dismissed by an order dated 23-8-1968 upholding the order of the Judges, Small Cause. 2. The present revision is directed against this order of the District Judge, Sitapur. 3. I have heard Sri N. Banerji and I am of opinion that the contention of the revisionist that the Sitapur courts had no jurisdiction, having regard to the claim under the suit, is sound and valid. 4. Section 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, reads as follows : "80. A suit for compensation for loss of the life of, or personal injury to, a passenger or for loss, destruction, damages, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods may be instituted :- (a) ......................... 4. Section 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, reads as follows : "80. A suit for compensation for loss of the life of, or personal injury to, a passenger or for loss, destruction, damages, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods may be instituted :- (a) ......................... (b) if the passenger was, or the animals or goods were, booked through over the railway of two or more railway administration, against the railway administration from which the passenger obtained his pass or purchased his ticket or to which the animals or goods were delivered for carriage, as the case may be, or against the railway administration on whose railway the destination station lies, or the loss, injury, destruction, damage or deterioration occurred : and, in either case, the suit may be instituted in a Court having jurisdiction over the place at which the passenger obtained his pass or purchased his ticket or the animals or goods were delivered for carriage, as the case may be, or over the place in which the destination station lies, or the loss, injury, destruction, damage or deterioration occurred. It is clear from the above provision that a suit for compensation for non-delivery of goods should be filed either : (1) against a railway administration to which the goods were delivered for carriage. (2) or the railway administration on whose railway the destination station lies. (3) or the railway administration on whose railway the loss occurred. 5. If the suitor chooses to sue the railway administration to which the goods were delivered for carriage then the suit can be filed only in the court having jurisdiction over the place at which the goods were delivered for carriage. If, however, the suitor elects to sue the railway administration on whose railway the goods were carried for delivery at a particular place, then the court having jurisdiction over the place where the destination station lies will have jurisdiction to try the suit. Thirdly, the suit will lie in the court having jurisdiction over the place where the loss occurred. In the present case, the opposite party-plaintiff chose to file the suit against the Union of India through the General Manager, Western Railway, Bombay. Thirdly, the suit will lie in the court having jurisdiction over the place where the loss occurred. In the present case, the opposite party-plaintiff chose to file the suit against the Union of India through the General Manager, Western Railway, Bombay. In other words, the opposite party chose to sue the railway administration of the Western Railway and not the railway administration of the North Eastern Railway because the Union of India was sued through the General Manager, Western Railway, Bombay and not the General Manager, North Eastern Railway. From the frame of the suit, therefore, it was clear that plaintiff chose to sue the railway administration to which the goods were delivered for carriage at Bombay and not the railway administration which carried the goods for delivery at Sitapur. That being so, on the frame of the suit it is the Bombay courts which will have jurisdiction, having regard to the mandatory provision of Section 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, and not the courts at Sitapur. The courts below mis-interpreted the provision of Section 80 and took an erroneous view in holding that the Judge, Small Cause Court at Sitapur had jurisdiction to try the Suit. 6. Arguments were addressed by Sri N. Banerji for the revisionist. 7. None appeared for the opposite party. 8. The revision is allowed and the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Sitapur, dated 23-8-1068 and the judgment and decree of the Munsif, Sitapur dated 1-5-1968 are set aside. The plaint is directed to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. 9. The petitioner will get costs of this revision petition from opposite party.