1. I think there is no merit in this application. The question which arose for immediate determination in the Court below was the proper construction of Section 71 of the U.P. Act No. 6 of 1920, the Village Panchayat Act. It seems that in this suit a claim was made by a firm trading under the name Ram Lochan Ram-Lachhmi Prasad. The suit was for recovery of Rs. 361-9 due on account.
2. Before the present suit was brought in the Court of Small Causes at Gorakhpur, four members of the firm had brought four separate suits before a Village Panchayat Court each claiming a one-fourth share of the consolidated debt.
3. Obviously this procedure was resorted to because the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Panchayat Court did not extend to the sum of Rs. 361 odd.
4. The Panchayat Court passed four separate decrees and these were subsequently cancelled by the Collector acting under the provisions of Section 71(1) of the Village Panchayat Act.
5. The decrees having been cancelled the firm then brought the suit out of which this application has arisen and the first question which arose for determination was one of limitation. The plaintiffs' firm sought the benefit of the provisions of Section 71(2) of the Village Panchayat Act but the learned Judge was of opinion that they could not avail themselves of this section. Obviously the plaintiffs in the later suit were not the same plaintiffs who brought the suit under the Panchayat Act and, moreover, the suits in the Panchayat Court were not for the same relief as the relief in the later case. The Judge, therefore, was in my opinion, clearly right in holding that the plaintiffs could not claim the benefit of Sub-section (2) of Section 71 in these proceedings.
6. Mr. Pande who appears for the applicants suggests that Section 14 of the Limitation Act should be applied. In my opinion that section cannot be applied, for Section 71, Sub-section (2) of the Village Panchayat Act provides a special rule of limitation which must derogate from the provisions of the general rule embodied in Section 14 of the Limitation Act. And apart from this even if Section 14 applies Mr. Pande's clients must still be in the same difficulty for the plaintiffs in the second suit are not identical with the plaintiffs in the earlier suits.
7. The application is dismissed with costs.