JUDGMENT Dutta, J. The plaintiffs, who are the appellants before us, feel aggrieved by order No. 13 dated December 19, 1978 of the Subordinate Judge, Sixth Court, Alipore whereby he came to the finding that he had on territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and, accordingly directed the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court. 2. The plaintiffs instituted the said suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 28863/- on account of compensation for short delivery of goods. The case of the plaintiffs was that the a consignment of 423 pcs. of M.S. Black Plain Sheets was booked at Burnpur by the Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited for carriage by the railway to Chinakuri. The plaintiff No. 1 was the owner and the endorsed consignee for valuable consideration in respect of the consignment. At the destination station the consignment was delivered with a shortage of 413 pcs. of the above Sheets and, accordingly, the plaintiff No. 1 suffered a loss to the extent of Rs. 28863/- and odd due to total negligence on the part of the railway administration. The consignment was covered by the policy of insurance issued by the plaintiff No. 2. The plaintiff No. 1 preferred the claim on the plaintiff No. 2 and the latter had paid the claim to the respondent No. 1 in consequence whereof and on the basis of the letter of subrogation, the plaintiff No. 2 became entitled to recover compensation from the defendant for the loss caused as aforesaid. 3. In paragraph 14 of the plaint, it has been alleged that the cause-of-action for the suit arose at the delivery station but since the head office of the South Eastern Railway is at Garden Reach, Calcutta, within the jurisdiction of the court of the Subordinate Judge, the suit was filed in that court. 4. The defendant, Union of India representing the South Eastern Railway raised in its written Statement a preliminary objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the court of the Subordinate Judge to try the suit and, accordingly, the learned Subordinate Judge framed an issue being issue No. 1 relating to the question of territorial jurisdiction. The learned Subordinate Judge came to the finding that in view of Sec. 80 of Indian Railways Act, he had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge came to the finding that in view of Sec. 80 of Indian Railways Act, he had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. In that view of the matter, he passed the impugned order directing return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court. Hence this appeal. 5. The only question that is involved in this appeal is whether the court below has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and hear the suit. Sec. 80 of the Indian Railway Act, as amended, provides as follows :- "80 Suits for Compensation. A suit for compensation for loss of life of, or personal injury to, a passenger or for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods may be instituted: (a) if the passenger was or the animals or goods were booked from one, station to another on the railway of the same railway administration, against that railway administration, (b) if the passenger was, or the animals or goods were booked through over the railway of two or more railway administrations, against the railway administrations, 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 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". 6. Under Sec. 80 a suit for compensation can be instituted inter alia in a court having jurisdiction over the place at which the goods were delivered for carriage or in the court having jurisdiction over the place in which the destination station lies. It was the contention of the defendant that in view of Sec., 80 the suit should have been instituted either in the court having jurisdiction over the place where the goods were delivered for carriage or in the court having jurisdiction over the place where the destination station is situate. The court of the learned Subordinate Judge has admittedly, no jurisdiction over those two places. The court of the learned Subordinate Judge has admittedly, no jurisdiction over those two places. The question that arises is whether Sec. 80 of the Railways Act either expressly or by necessary implication overrides the provisions of Sec. 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure under which a suit can be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. It is not disputed that the defendant, namely, the Union of India owning the South Eastern Railway carries on the business of such railway at the head quarters of such railway at Garden Reach, within the territorial jurisdiction of the court of the learned Subordinate Judge. The suit was, therefore, rightly instituted in the court below, as per the provision of Sec. 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, took the view that Sec. 80 of the Indian Railways Act overrides the provision of Sec. 20 of CPC and that, in any event, as the Indian Railways Act is a special Act, the forum for the institution of the suit, as laid down in Sec. 80 should prevail over Sec. 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We are however, unable to subscribe to the views of the learned Subordinate Judge. Sec. 80 of the Indian Railway Act does not either expressly or by necessary implication repeal or override the provision of Sec. 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Indeed it is quite clear that in addition to the forum whore the suit can be instituted as per Sec. 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure the same can also be instituted in other forums under sec. 80 of the Indian Railways Act. Sec. 20 is not inconsistent with or repugnant to the provisions of Sec. 80 and there will be no difficulty for the two provisions to exist simultaneously. The view which we take finds support from a Bench decision of the Assam and Nagaland High Court delivered by Goswami, C.J. (as His Lordship then was) in (1) Ratna Kanta Dutta v. The Secretary to the Govt. of Assam (P.W.D. (R&B), Assam, Shillong. AIR 1971 A & N 69. In our opinion, the learned Subordinate Judge committed an error of law in holding that he had not the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and hear the suit. of Assam (P.W.D. (R&B), Assam, Shillong. AIR 1971 A & N 69. In our opinion, the learned Subordinate Judge committed an error of law in holding that he had not the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and hear the suit. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, the order of the learned Subordinate Judge is set aside and the case is sent back to him with a direction to dispose of the same in accordance with law. This appeal is allowed, but there will be no order as to costs. Sharma, J. : I agree.