JUDGMENT Daniels, J.
1. This is a revision against a Small Cause Court decree awarding compensation for Short delivery of betelleaves consigned by the G.I.P. and B.B. and C. I. Railway Companies. The applicants are quite right in asserting that the only loss for which the Railway can be held accountable under Risk Note H which ' applies to this case, even, in case of wilful negligence must be loss of a complete consignment or of a complete package" or packages forming part of such cortsigment. The decree may, however, be supported on; another ground. The plaintiff did not come into Court alleging loss. He merely alleged1, that so much betel leaves had been booked' by the Railway and that the full amount had not been delivered. There is a long, series of cases commencing with Ghelabhai Punsi v. East Indian Railway Co. 63 Ind. Cas. 241 : 45 B. 1201 : 23 Bom. L.R. 525 and including several cases of this Court, eg., East, Indian Railway Co. v. Firm Kishin Lal-Tirkhamal 73 Ind. Cas. 986 : 45 A. 530 : 21 A.L.J. 438 : 9 O. & A.L.R. 531 : A.I.R. 1924 All. 7 and East Indian Railway Co. v. Firm Gopi Krishna-Kashi Prasad 77 Ind. Cas. 1046 : 45 A. 534 : 21 A.L.J. 448 : A.I.R. 1924 All. 8 as well as East Indian Railway Co. v. Jagpat Singh 79 Ind. Cas. 126 : 51 C. 615 : 28 C.W.N. 1001 : A.I.R. 1924 Cal. 725 which lay down that-where a plaintiff does not come into Court on the ground of less, destruction or deterioration, the Railway Company must prove that the goods have been lost of destroyed or have deteriorated before they can claim, the protection of the Risk Note I may add that the judgment complained; of was de-livered on 9th April and-that this revision was not filed until 5th November. The delay of nearly seven months in filing the-application would in itself have been a-sufficient ground for declining to accept it.
2. For the reasons already given I dismiss the application with costs.