1. This is a revision petition against the decree of the District Munsif of Ambasamudram in S.C.S. No. 543 of 1929. The suit was filed to recover Rs. 290 consisting of Rs. 270, the principal and interest due on a promissory note, dated 18th October, 1915, for Rs. 205-14-0 and Rs. 20, the principal and interest due on an oral loan of Rs. 13. The second claim was not afterwards pressed and it is not necessary to refer to it any more.
2. One of the points raised in the case is that the plaintiff having previously filed a suit in the Village Court for Rs. 35, a portion of the claim of Rs. 270, he is precluded from bringing this suit. The District Munsif disallowed that plea relying on Augustus Brothers v. Fernandez (1915) 29 M.L.J. 474. In that case there was a reference to the High Court by the Subordinate Judge of Cochin on the question whether Order 2, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code applies to Village Courts. The parties were not represented in the High Court and it was held that Order 2, Rule 2 does not apply to Village Courts. In the earlier part of the judgment it was pointed out that the claim itself is based upon several separate dealings or purchases and looked at from that point of view, there is no objection to the second suit. But the Court proceeded to consider the point referred to apart from this consideration. But in no part of the judgment was Section 18 of the Village Courts Act (I of 1889) referred to. It may be that Order 2, Rule 2 does not apply to Village Courts. But the Act contains a provision similar to it. Section 18 runs as follows:
Every suit instituted in a Village Court shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action, but he may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of such Court. If a plaintiff omit to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquish, any portion of his claim, he shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit for or in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.
3. It is admitted in the cross-examination that Rs. 35 in the former suit represented a portion of the interest on the promissory note, Ex. A. That being so, he is precluded from bringing the second suit.
4. It is unnecessary to go into the other question raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner as to the genuineness of Ex. B which is relied on as an acknowledgment for the purpose of saving limitation.
5. The civil revision petition is allowed and the plaintiff's suit Is dismissed with costs throughout.