Short Note : 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for damages against the defendants for loss sustained to a consignment booked for carriage by rail 660 tins of groundnut oil were booked on 10-4-65 at Keshod railway station on the Western Railway for carriage and delivery at Baradwar on the South-Eastern Railway. The consignment was booked at the railway risk rate. Plaintiff was consignee of the same. On 1-5-65 open delivery of the consignment was given to the plaintiff at the destination since the consignment was damaged during transit resulting in a total shortage in the weight of groundnut oil amounting to 519 Kgs. Ex. P-4 is the assessment memo given by the railway administration to the plaintiff showing the extent of loss. There was no dispute that loss to this extent had been sustained by the plaintiff but the liability was obviously disputed by the defendant. This led to filing of the suit for recovery of Rs. 1388-59 Paise as the cost of groundnut oil lost during transit together with Rs. 10 claimed as expenses of the notice. 2. The plaintiff's case was that the aforesaid loss resulted from the negligence and misconduct of the railway administration and its employees in the carriage of goods. The defence taken was based on section 77-C of the Indian Railways Act (here-in-after called ‘the Act’). It was alleged that the tins used were old and dented: Bhoosa had not been properly filled in the intervening space and the tins were also not tied with coir rope so that the prescribed packing condition for the wagon load of consignment was not complied with. It was alleged that this fact of non-compliance of the requisite packing condition had been recorded by the consignor's agent in the forwarding note which exonerate the defendant from any liability since the loss was a consequence of this defective packing condition. 3. At the trial; no evidence, either oral or documentary, was led by the defendant. The burden of proving the defence taken under section 77-C of the Act being on the defendant and the same not being discharged the suit was naturally decreed by the trial Court. The plaintiff's claim was decreed to the extent of Rs. 1151.80 Paise. 4. The defendant filed an appeal to the District Court. The first appellate Court has reversed that decree. The plaintiff's claim was decreed to the extent of Rs. 1151.80 Paise. 4. The defendant filed an appeal to the District Court. The first appellate Court has reversed that decree. It has been held that the railway receipt and the forwarding note filed on behalf of the defendant in the trial Court were proved by their mere production in accordance with section 139 of the Act. It was then held that the entry purporting to have been made by the consignor's agent in the forwarding note which was in Gujarati appears to indicate that the requisite packing condition had not been complied with. On this basis, the learned First Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, proceeded to reverse the trial Court's decree and dismissed the suit. Held : On behalf of the appellant it is urged that the first appellate Court was not entitled to look into the forwarding note without the same being proved in accordance with law so as to become a part of evidence. Admittedly no evidence of any kind was led on behalf of the defendant. The forwarding note and railway receipt were merely filed on behalf of the defendant in the trial Court. These documents not having been admitted by the other side, they were required to be proved in the manner provided by law. Reliance was placed by the first appellate Court on section 139, as stated above, and Shri K.K. Pandey, learned counsel of the respondents, supports the same. It has, therefore, to be seen whether this provision enables the reading of an entry in a forwarding note purporting to be made by the consignor's agent without there being any evidence to prove the same. It is sufficient to state that the provision relates only to entries made by Officers of the railway administration and is an enabling provision which dispenses with the production of the original records or other documents of the railway administration. In the present case it is sufficient to say that it is the entry alleged to have been made by the consignor's agent which was required to be proved for being read in evidence. It is difficult for me to accept that this provision permits the reading of that entry in the forwarding note without the same being proved in the manner provided in the Evidence Act by any evidence. It is difficult for me to accept that this provision permits the reading of that entry in the forwarding note without the same being proved in the manner provided in the Evidence Act by any evidence. That being so, the only material relied on by the first appellate Court could not be read as evidence in the case. The result is that there was no evidence to provide the foundation for the defence taken under section 77-C of the Act. Suit decreed. Appeal allowed.