JUDGMENT Sarwar Ali, J. This is a revision under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act. The plaintiff-petitioner brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 370.60 on account of short delivery. The suit has been dismissed. 2. 72 bags of Urea was despatched from Hatharash City for Begusarai. When delivery was taken there was a shortage of 440.5 Kg. The plaintiff has claimed damages for the said shortage. The Small Cause Court Judge was of the view that since the plaintiff has failed to substantiate the actual quantity of Urea that was despatched from the starting station it was not entitled to the claim made in the suit. He was further of the view that negligence and misconduct on the part of the railway administration or its employees not having been established the plaintiff could not succeed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Railway receipt establishes the actual amount despatched. He further contended that in the circumstances it was not for the plaintiff to prove negligence or misconduct. The learned counsel for the opposite party controverted both these arguments. 4. In this case the forwarding note of the consignment in question is Ext. C. The forwarding note clearly establishes that the goods were defectively packed. In this situation the learned counsel for the opposite party contends that section 77G of the Indian Railways Act, is applicable and consequently it is for the plaintiff to prove negligence or misconduct. The contention appears to be correct. Section 77 C of the Act, states that in case of defective packing which fact has been recorded by the sender or his agent in the forwarding note notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of Chapter VII of the Act, the Railway Administration shall not be liable for any leakage or wastage except upon proof of negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railway administration or any of its servants. It is thus clear that in view of Ext. C, the forwarding note, which records defective or improper packing the onus was on the plaintiff to prove negligence or misconduct. The finding of the court is that the plaintiff has failed to prove the same. In view of the finding and the position of law as explained there is no error of law in the judgment of the court below. 5. The finding of the court is that the plaintiff has failed to prove the same. In view of the finding and the position of law as explained there is no error of law in the judgment of the court below. 5. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to consider the first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. This application is accordingly dismissed, but without cost. Application dismissed.