Short Note : 1. The fact in brief giving rise to this revision petition are that on 16-7-71, a consignment consisting of nine boxes of utensils was booked from Muradabad to Neemuch. It reached the destination station in damaged condition. The non applicant demanded open delivery from tile applicant at Railway Station Neemuch, which was given without prejudice and a shortage certificate was also given to the non-applicant. Thereafter, the non-applicant filed the present suit for recovery of damages on account of the shortage by alleging grave negligence and carelessness of the applicant. 2. He further alleged that notice under section 78-B of the (Indian) Railways Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was given on 22-9-71 under certificate of posting to the applicant within six months from the date of booking. The applicant contested the suit and denied the receipt of the notice under section 78-B of the Act. The trial Court, on evidence, decreed the plaintiff's claim. Hence this revision. Held : The manner of serving the notice on railway administration has been mentioned in section 140 of the Act, and section 142 of the Act deals with the presumption where the notice is served by post. According to section 140, the notice on railway administration could be served : (a) by delivering the notice or other document to the Manager or the Chief Commercial Superintendent or Agent; or (b) by leaving it at his office: or (c) by forwarding it by post in a prepaid letter addressed to the Manager or the Chief Commercial Superintendent or Agent at his office and registered under the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. 5. In the present case, admittedly, a notice under section 78-B of the Act, was not sent by registered post but is alleged to have been sent under certificate of posting. The applicant specifically denied the receipt of any such notice like Ex. P/5. In fact the postal certificate Ex. P/6 was produced for the first time in original in the trial Court and tendered in evidence in the statement of the plaintiff and not earlier which creates a doubt regarding the genuineness of the postal certificate. That apart in the notice dated 28-1-1972 Ex. P/7 given under section 80, CPC., it is also mentioned that the same is being served under section 78-B of the Act also. That apart in the notice dated 28-1-1972 Ex. P/7 given under section 80, CPC., it is also mentioned that the same is being served under section 78-B of the Act also. In this notice, there is no reference or any mention of the earlier notice Ex P/5 dated 22-9-71 alleged to have been sent under certificate of posting. It is, therefore, difficult to believe that the plaintiff had sent the notice under section 78-B of the Act within six months from the date of the delivery of the goods for carriage by railway, as required by law and, in the absence of it, the plaintiff's claim is not maintainable, which was rightly refuted by the applicant vide Ex. P/10, the reply sent to the plaintiff's notice under section 80, C.P.C. Revision allowed.