Skip to content


Seshagiri Row Vs. Vajra Velayudan Pillai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1912)22MLJ377
AppellantSeshagiri Row
RespondentVajra Velayudan Pillai
Cases ReferredMohidin Rowthen v. Nalla
Excerpt:
- - nallaperumal pillai (1911)21mlj1000 and according to the decision in that case the suit is clearly barred ;but itis contended that an argument of importance was not submitted to the court in that case, which would have materially influeuced the judgment......in that case, which would have materially influeuced the judgment. that argument is that when a plaint returned for presentation to the proper court on the ground of absence of jurisdiction in the court to which it was originally presented is re-presented to the proper court, the suit itself must be regarded as a continuation of the infructuous suit in the wrong court this argument cannot be upheld. proceedings instituted without jurisdictiou cannot be deemed as legally valid and capable of being continued in another court. in the case in takhuroodeen mahomed eshan chowdry v. kurim bux chowdry and ors. (1865) 3 w.r.c.r. 20 cited for the appellant, the suit was regarded as transferred from one court to another. in such a case of course it is the same suit that is continued in the court.....
Judgment:

1. The facts of this case are quite similar to those in Mohidin Rowthen v. Nallaperumal Pillai : (1911)21MLJ1000 and according to the decision in that case the suit is clearly barred ; but itis contended that an argument of importance was not submitted to the court in that case, which would have materially influeuced the judgment. That argument is that when a plaint returned for presentation to the proper court on the ground of absence of jurisdiction in the court to which it was originally presented is re-presented to the proper court, the suit itself must be regarded as a continuation of the infructuous suit in the wrong court This argument cannot be upheld. Proceedings instituted without jurisdictiou cannot be deemed as legally valid and capable of being continued in another court. In the case in Takhuroodeen Mahomed Eshan Chowdry v. Kurim Bux Chowdry and Ors. (1865) 3 W.R.C.R. 20 cited for the appellant, the suit was regarded as transferred from one court to another. In such a case of course it is the same suit that is continued in the court to which the transfer is made. The case in Khellat Chunder Ghose v. Nusseebunnissa Bibee and Ors. (1871) 16 W.R.C.R. 47 is not in point as there the question was not one of limitation, though in one portion of the judgment the learned Judges who decided the case speak of the suit being the same where a plaint returned by one court is re-presented to another court. In Assan v. Pathumma I.L.R. (1899) M. 494 this court freld that the original suit must be taken to have been newly amended and the case is therefore not similar to this case. Abboye Churn Chuckerbutty v. Gour Mohun Dutt and Anr. (1875) 24 W.R.C.R. 26 is a decision against the respondent's contention. Section 14 of Act XV of 1877 proceeded on the basis that where a plaint was returned under Section 20 of Act XIV of 1882 and presented again to another court, the suit must be regarded as a new one and not as a continuation of the former suit. We see no reason to differ from the decision in Mohidin Rowthen v. Nalla ferumal Pillai : (1911)21MLJ1000 . We allow the second appeal and dismiss the suit. We make no order as to costs.


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