1. The Subordinate Judge holds that as the applications of the year 1907 and 1908 were returned for amendment to the decree-holder and not represented by him, they would not save limitation. He relies upon Gopal Sah v. Janki Koer I.L.R. (1895) C. 217 in support of this view. Article 182 of the Limitation Act only requires that there should be an application. The fact that it was not represented would not affect limitation. Gopal Sah v. Janki Rai (1914) 26 I.C. 410 was dissented from in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 322 of 1913. (Vadivelu Pillai v. Maruda Pillai (1914) M.W.N. 372. See also K.R. Srinivasa Iyengar v. Tirumalai Chetty (1914) M.W.N. 372. We are not prepared to follow the Calcutta decision.
2. The Lower Appellate Court is in error in saying that when the applications of 1907 and 1908 were made, the decree was in the Rajahmundry Court. The B Diary shows that there must have been a re-transfer. Moreover the District Munsif who may be presumed to know how his record stands does not say that at the time the two applications were made, the Ellore Court had no jurisdiction. We must reverse the order of the Subordinate Judge and remand it for disposal according to law.
3. Costs will abide the result.