R. RAMAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) AN important question that requires determination in this revision is:"whether the Court-below is justified in dismissing the suit of the petitioners on the ground that notice to the common carrier was not issued as contemplated under Section 10 of the Carriers Act, 1865?" ( 2 ) THE undisputed facts are, on 30-4-1987 a consignment consisted of clothes was entrusted to the respondent, a Public Carrier, to deliver at Akola. The respondent accepted the consignment under G. C. Note No. 257353. The consignment was insured with the first petitioner for covering the risk for damage, short supply, etc. ( 3 ) ON 7-8-1987 the respondent issued a non-delivery certificate in respect of the goods entrusted to him. The second petitioner on the basis of this certificate, registered a claim and received a sum of Rs. 4,931-04 p. , towards full settlement of claim and executed a special power of Attorney and a letter of subrogation. On the strength of these documents, the first petitioner instituted a suit for recovery of this amount along with first petitioner in S. C. No. 5 of 1988 before the Small Causes court (SCCH No. 9), Bangalore City. ( 4 ) THE trial Court ordered issue of notice to the respondent returnable by 15-2-1988. On the date of hearing, the respondent was absent though suit summons served. The Court proceeded to place him ex-parte under Order IX, Rule 6 (l) (a) and adjourned the case for Judgment on 8-4-1988. On 8-4-1988, the learned Judge written the Judgment and pronounced in the open Court by dismissing the suit. These facts are borned out in the order sheet. ( 5 ) CONTRARY to this, the order discloses that the Court-below examined a witness by name N. Sundar Raman and also marked some documents on behalf of first petitioner. ( 6 ) ON a perusal of the order, the trial Court took the following facts to justify the dismissal of the suit:" (1) The petitioners have not issued notice to defendant as contemplated under section 10 of the Carriers Act, 1865; Hence it is liable to be dismissed in view of the Judgment reported in ILR 1987 Kar. 3511, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v Prakash Road Lines Pvt. Ltd. (2) On 3-9-1987, and on 7-9-1987, the first petitioner had no authority to represent the second petitioner. 3511, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v Prakash Road Lines Pvt. Ltd. (2) On 3-9-1987, and on 7-9-1987, the first petitioner had no authority to represent the second petitioner. The first petitioner did not require the respondent to settle the suit claim by any notice under Section 10; therefore, it cannot recover the suit claim from the respondent. (3) Second petitioner has been compensated and a sum of Rs. 4,931-04 p. has been paid to it by the first petitioner much earlier to 20-11-1987. Therefore, the claim of the second petitioner cannot be sustained in view of a Judgment in 1987 (1) Kar. LJ. 169. " ( 7 ) SRI S. P. Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioners, has assailed the order of the trial Court as erroneous as the respondent being both as a carrier of goods and as a bailee is liable to make good the loss under common law. The learned counsel further submitted that in the absence of the respondent to contest the claim, the court-below acquired the place of respondent and thereby exceeded its jurisdiction vested in it by dismissing the suit on an assumed ground of notice. ( 8 ) ALL is not appearing to be well on a perusal of the trial Court proceedings. There is no indication in the order sheet for having examined P. W. 1 and noting the exhibits of documents. ( 9 ) THE trial Court says in para 10 of the Order that:"on 3-9-1987, the second petitioner sent a monetary claim for Rs. 4,931-04 p. to the defendant as per Ex. P. 3 which was received by the respondent on 7-9-1987 as per Ex. P. 5. " the Court again says: "making of such a claim docs not dispense with the statutory requirement of issue of notice to a common carrier as contemplated under Section 10 of the carriers Act, 1865. "9. If the first part of the finding is concerned, the demand notice issued by the second petitioner meets the requirement of law as it is observed by a Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v Prakash Road Lines Pvt. Ltd. , ILR 1987 kar. 3511, referred by the trial Court to dismiss the suit. "9. If the first part of the finding is concerned, the demand notice issued by the second petitioner meets the requirement of law as it is observed by a Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v Prakash Road Lines Pvt. Ltd. , ILR 1987 kar. 3511, referred by the trial Court to dismiss the suit. Issue of notice under Section 10 is not a subject-matter of contravercy in the above case but on a passing observation, the Court held:"the object of notice is to put the defendant on guard against the claim in question. By virtue of the assignment, the plaintiff for the purpose of Section 10 of the Carriers Act, must necessarily mean and include the assignor of the plaintiff in the suit, i. e. , the I. T. I. Hence we hold that the notices issued by the i. T. I. as per Ex. P. 10 and Ex. P. 17 well within time are sufficient and as such the requirement as to issue of notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act has been complied with. " ( 10 ) THE above finding satisfies the doubt raised by the trial Court and answers paras 10 and 11 of the order. When the above Judgment confines to the limited extent it is un-understandable as to how this Judgment relied for dismissal of the suit. Section 10 reads as follows:"10. Notice of loss or injury to be given within six months: No suit shall be instituted against a common carrier for the loss of, or injury to, goods entrusted to him for carriage, unless notice in writing of the loss or injury has been given to him before the institution of the suit and within six months of the time when the loss or injury first came to the knowledge of the plaintiff. " ( 11 ) THE insistence to issue of a notice to common carrier before institution of the suit is to bring to his knowledge the loss occasioned by his non-delivery, short delivery or loss of the consignment. The Courts will get the jurisdiction to dismiss the suit, if it finds necessary, only if the common carrier make a grievance of it and a plea is raised in the written statement. The plaintiff is not obliged to state the fact of issue of notice under Section 10 in the plaint. The Courts will get the jurisdiction to dismiss the suit, if it finds necessary, only if the common carrier make a grievance of it and a plea is raised in the written statement. The plaintiff is not obliged to state the fact of issue of notice under Section 10 in the plaint. It is implied under Order 6, Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code. This section is intended to bring to the notice of the common carrier the total damage in the monetary terms, where the carrier is ignorant of this. There will be cases where after delivery of consignment, the damage will be noticed much later. ( 12 ) BUT in this case, the respondent has not delivered the goods at all. So nondelivery of goods is within his knowledge. He exhibited such knowledge by giving a non-delivery certificate dated 7-8-1987. Hence the plea of non-issue of notice is only hyper-technical. ( 13 ) THE trial Court also committed illegality by presuming a jurisdiction which is not vested, when it proceeded to dismiss the suit on the ground of non-issue of notice without giving an opportunity to the petitioners to explain this aspect of the matter when they are duly represented by a learned Advocate. ( 14 ) LOOKING from any angle, the order of the trial Court is legally not sustainable. In the result, this revision is allowed. The Judgment passed by the trial Court, describing it as an order dated 8-4-1988 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial Court with a direction to dispose of the case only on the question of the liability of the defendant to pay the suit claim in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioners are directed to make their appearance before the Court-below on 9-9-1991 without wailing for any summons. There is no order as to costs. --- *** --- .