Judgment :- The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is one for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,520.45 as damages from the respondent. The case of the plaintiff is that 270 bags of Milow were intended to be delivered for Dharmapuri District but the Railway Administration has delivered only 267 bags of Milow and that too in a damaged condition. Calculating the damage for short delivery and also the damages caused to the delivered goods, a sum of Rs.3,520.45 is claimed by the plaintiff as damages. A preliminary objection was taken by the respondent/defendant stating that in view of the provision contained in Article .131 of the Constitution the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Following the decision reported in State of Kerala v. The General Manager Southern Railway, (1977)1 An.W.R. (S.C.) 65- (1977)1 M.L.J. (S.C.) 65= (1977)1 S.C.R.419= (1977)1 S.C.J.290= (1976)4 S.C.C.265= A.I.R.1976 S.C.2538, the trial Court held that the suit is not maintainable. On appeal, the lower appellate Court concurred with the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. It is as against these judgments and decrees the present Second Appeal has been filed. 2. Mr. S.Krishnaswami, Government Advocate appearing for the plaintiff/ appellant submitted that the view taken by the courts below is erroneous and that Article 131 of the Constitution is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In support of this contention, the learned counsel cited the decision reported in The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Union of India represented by the General Manager , Southern Railway, Madras (1980)2 M.L.J.327. In this decision, Ratnam, J. applying the principles laid down in State of Karna-taka v. Union of India, (1977)4 S.C.C. 608= (1978)2 S.C.J.190= (1978)2 S.C.R.1: A.I.R.1978 S.C.68 held that what has to be seen in order to determine the applicability in the context of the Constitution, whether there is any immunity qua the parties to the dispute and that if there is, the suit would be maintainable but not otherwise. Considering the facts in the particular case, the learned Judge held that it is clear that Article 131 of the Constitution does not stand attracted at all. 3. Considering the facts in the particular case, the learned Judge held that it is clear that Article 131 of the Constitution does not stand attracted at all. 3. Mr.P.S.Srisailam, learned counsel for the Railways, states that the decision of the Courts below cannot be sustained in view of the recent pronouncements of the Supreme Court reported in Union of India v. State of Rajasthan, (1984)4 S.C.C.238= (1984) 10 A11.L.R.678= A.I.R.1984 S.C.1675. In this decision, the facts of the case are almost identical to that of our case. Speaking for the Bench, Venkata-ramiah, J. has stated thus: "Section 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 indicates that the claim made under it is essentially against the Railway administration concerned. The Union of India is impleaded as a party to suits instituted thereunder being the owner of the Indian Railways by virtue of Article 300 of the Constitution. The statute, however, treats the dispute as one between the Railway Administration concerned and the person instituting the suit. Neither of the parties to these proceedings is questioning the applicability of the provisions of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 to these proceedings. It is, therefore, difficult to hold that in these proceedings there is any question which falls within the scope of Article 131 of the Constitution." 4. In that case, the State of Rajasthan filed the suit at the Sub Court, Rajasthan against the Union of India for recovery of compensation on account of the loss caused to the goods sent to the Indian Railways. The question that arose is as to whether such a suit is maintainable under Article 131 of the Constitution of India, It is inthat context, the above decision was given by the Supreme Court. In all fours, the said decision applies to the facts of the present case. In these circumstances, the judgment of the Courts below cannot be sustained. 5. For all these reasons, the Second Appeal is allowed holding that the suit is maintainable. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit on merits. There will be no order as to costs.