Skip to content


Basvanappa Shivrudrappa Vs. Krishnadas Govardhandas Madiwale - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number Second Appeal No. 858 of 1919
Judge
Reported in(1920)22BOMLR1387
AppellantBasvanappa Shivrudrappa
RespondentKrishnadas Govardhandas Madiwale
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....of tint- plaint presented in a wrong court-plaint ordered to be returned-actual return of plaint-' vacation time in wrong court should be excluded.;a suit to recover money due on transactions from 20th may 1913 to 26th june 1013 was filed in the hubli court, when it opened after the vacation on 7th june 1916. it was then found that the hubli court had no jurisdiction to entertain the plaint; and the plaint was ordered, on 15th january 1917, to be returned for presentation to the proper court. the plaintiff was, however, actually returned on the 25th idem and presented on the game day to the haveri court:-;(1) that the plaintiff was entitled to exclude the period from 7th june 1916 to 26th january 1917, under section 14 of the indian limitation act 1908;;(2) that the plaintiff..........that, if we exclude the period from 7th june 1916 to 25th january 1917 and consider whether the suit filed in the haveri court was within time, the suit in the haveri court will still be four days out of time, the argument being that the period which was allowed to be excluded owing to the hubli court being closed for the vacation when the plaint' was filed in that court could no longer be taken advantage of, after the order had been made to take back the plaint and file it in another court. reliance was placed on the case of mira mohidin rowther v. nallaperumal pillai i. l. r (1911) mad. 131. with all due respect. it seems to me that the result, if that case were followed, would be most inequitable. bearing in mind that the suit when filed in the first court was in time, and that the.....
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.

1. The plaintiff filed this suit to recover a sum of Rs. 866-3-3 alleged to be due on account of cotton dealings with the defendant between 20th May 1918 and 26th June 1913. The suit was filed in the Hubli Court on the 7th June 1916, and admittedly was then within time because the Court opened after the vacation on the 7th June. The defendant then pleaded that he was an agriculturist with the result that the suit had to be filed in another Court, and the plaint was ordered on the 15th January 1917 to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. The plaintiff actually took away his plaint on the 25th January and presented it on the same day in the Haveri Court. Clearly Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act applies and the time taken up in the former application from the date on which it was instituted till the date on which the proceedings therein ended, had to be counted. It was first argued that the proceedings ended on the 15th January instead of 25th January when the plaint was returned. Clearly when a party is ordered to take back his plaint and present it in the proper Court, the proceedings do not end until the party gets back, his plaint. But then it is urged that, if we exclude the period from 7th June 1916 to 25th January 1917 and consider whether the suit filed in the Haveri Court was within time, the suit in the Haveri Court will still be four days out of time, the argument being that the period which was allowed to be excluded owing to the Hubli Court being closed for the vacation when the plaint' was filed in that Court could no longer be taken advantage of, after the order had been made to take back the plaint and file it in another Court. Reliance was placed on the case of Mira Mohidin Rowther v. Nallaperumal Pillai I. L. R (1911) Mad. 131. With all due respect. it seems to me that the result, if that case were followed, would be most inequitable. Bearing in mind that the suit when filed in the first Court was in time, and that the time which was taken up by the proceedings in that Court can be excluded, it would be a most extraordinary result that when the suit was filed in the proper Court, it should be held to be time-barred. Clearly the plaintiff is entitled to take advantage of those days during which the first Court was closed for the vacation, and the calculation should be made in the same way as if the second Court had been closed for the vacation. In my opinion, therefore, the decision of the lower appellate Court was perfectly correct, and the appeal must be dismissed with costs.

Fawcett, J.

2. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //