East Indian Railway Company vs Badri Narain and Others

This is an application on behalf of the East Indian Railway Company for leave to appeal from a decision of this Court; to His Majesty in Council. It appears that five suits claiming compensation for lose or damage to goods consigned by the plaintiffs to the Best Indian Railway Company for carriage on their railway stem were instituted by the same plaintiff a against the railway company. The suits although they related to different; consignments, appear to have raised exactly the same questions for determination. They were accordingly heard "together in the trial Court and judgment was entered in favour of the plaintiffs.

On appeal by the Railway Company that judgment was reversed by the District Judge who dismissed the suits. Again the suits were tried together and decided in that appeal by the same judgment.

A further appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs to this Court and amongst other points it was urged chat the appeal before the District Judge was not competent. The ground upon which that argument was based was that two of the parties who has bean plaintiffs in the trial Court and who were members of the joint family to which the plaintiffs belonged were not add as parties in the appeal and that the Judge after the period of limitation had expired had improperly joined them as respondents under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 20 Civil P.C. This is took the view that the lower appellate Court had acted improperly in joining the respondents under the provisions of that rule, the period of limitation having expired before the order joining them was passed and accordingly held that the appeal to the lower appellate Court was not competent and that the decision ought to be reversed. The Court accordingly overruled the decision of the lower appellate Court; and restored that of the trial Court.

From chat decision the railway company now seeks to appeal to His Majesty in Council. None of the five suits taken alone involve a claim to a sum of Rs. 10,000 or anything like it. If, however, the five suits should be consolidated, and we think that this would be a proper case in the circumstances for ordering consolidation for the purposes of pecuniary valuation under Order 45, Rule 4, Civil P.C., then the value amount to roughly Rs. 8,870 or thereabouts. It follows, therefore, that the total value of the subject-matter of the suits when consolidated does not amount to the sum of Rs. 10,000.

The learned advocate for the appellant contends, however, that the costs amounting to a sum of Rs. 1,196 should be added to the amount of compensation claimed and awarded in order to bring the valuation up to Rs 10,000, In our opinion this cannot be done. The costs of the suits are in no sense the subject-matter of the suit in the Court of first instance and ought not to be added to that subject-matter in order to bring the valuation up to the appealable amount under the provisions of Section 110, Civil P.C. The consequence is that in our opinion the case is not one which complies with the provisions of Section 110 and the applications in these five suits and the application for consolidation must be dismissed. The respondents are entitled to their costs. There will be one set of costs.