ORDER : I.A. No. 6830 of 2015 1. The present interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 163 days. 2. Perused the ground as stated in para-3 to 7 of the present I.A., it appears that there are sufficient reasons explained for condonation of delay. Therefore, the delay in preferring this appeal is condoned. 3. Accordingly, I.A. No. 6830 of 2015 is allowed S.A. No.644 of 2015 4. The plaintiff-appellant has filed a suit for recovery a sum of Rs. 2,18,231/-(Rupees Two Lacs Eighteen Thousand Two Hundred & Thirty One) with interest from defendant and in alternative for an inquiry for the loss suffered by the plaintiffs and passing a decree for such sum as may be found to be due upon such inquiry in favour of the plaintiff. 5. The case of the plaintiff is that there was an agreement between the plaintiff no.1 and the defendant regarding supply of goods and there was another agreement between plaintiff no.1 and 2 for indemnify the loss. 6. It is the case of the plaintiff that in fact damaged goods has been transported for which although appellant no.2 has compensated the loss to the appellant no.1 but under the law he was entitled to recover the same from the defendant. Accordingly, the present suit has been filed. 7. The Trial Court after hearing the parties has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. 8. Being aggrieved, defendant has filed the appeal being Money Appeal No. 05/2003. The Appellate Court has taken note of Section 10 of the Carrier Act, 1865 which is quoted here-in-below:- “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 including container, pallets or similar article of transport used to consolidate 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.” 9. The wording of Section 10 is clear that for filing any suit six month notice is mandatory. In the absence of notice, no suit is maintainable. This proposition of law has been declared interpreting Section 10 (above), by the Apex Court as reported in AIR 2004 SCC 5147. The wording of Section 10 is clear that for filing any suit six month notice is mandatory. In the absence of notice, no suit is maintainable. This proposition of law has been declared interpreting Section 10 (above), by the Apex Court as reported in AIR 2004 SCC 5147. 10. On the basis of above legal position, the Appellate Court held that the suit itself was not maintainable due to non compliance of mandatory notice under Section 10 of the Carrier Act, 1865. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any infirmity in the judgment of Appellate Court, much less any substantial question of law involved in the present appeal. 12. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present second appeal, accordingly the same is hereby dismissed.