1. These are two civil revision petitions filed against the orders of the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam in S. C. Nos. 123 and 122 of 1950.
2. The facts are briefly these: The petitioner before us is the creditor and the respondents before us are the debtors on promissory notes. This petitioner seems to have been charging only a low rate of interest at 5 per cent, which is rather an unusual feature in the litigation coming before this Court from this locality. In addition there seems to have been a renewal of the promissory notes by a woman and possibly there were other circumstances which stood in the way of completely realising the amount of principal and interest. In addition it is well known, and, of which judicial notice can be taken of, that if a suit is filed in the Munsiff's Court it takes a pretty long time. But, on the other hand, if it is filed on the small cause side of the Sub-Court there is speedy disposal and several other advantages which need not be catalogued.
In fact alt these circumstances seem to have weighed on the mind of the petitioner before us, and, therefore he refrained from filing a suit in the District Munsif's Court and awaited the reopening of the Small Cause Court in which he intended to file his suits after relinquishing a portion of his claim in order to faring the suits within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court Judge. This unfortunately resulted in the fact that whereas the suit which ought to have been filed on the 15th was filed on the 19th after the Small Cause Court reopened after the summer recess.
3. Objection was taken by the respondents before me that the suits were barred by limitation on the date on which they were filed on the foot-ing of the reasoning that the interest etc., were given up in order to bring the suits within the Court of the Small Cause Judge only after the period of limitation expired, viz. the 15th. In other words, the respondents want to make out that the petitioner made up his mind only between the 15th and the 19th as to where he should file the suits. The learned Subordinate Judge persuaded himself that these suite were barred by limitation and dismissed them, and, hence these civil revision petitions.
4. I am of opinion that these suits are not barred by limitation. On the other hand, it is perfectly open to the petitioner to have awaited the reopening of the Small Cause Court in order to file his suits. There can be no possible dispute that this petitioner was entitled to file on. the small cause side once he was prepared to relinquish a portion of the claim which would bring it within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court. In fact he is entitled to do so under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.
5. The only point which is urged is that these suits have been filed on the 19th giving up interest only after the promissory notes have become time barred on the 15th when suits could have been filed in the District Munsif's Court as original suits. This argument overlooks the fact that it was open to the petitioner from the very beginning to give up his claim and make up his mind long before the 15th that he would file only in the Small Cause Court for various advant-ages, and, this he has done. On this conclusion it follows that we cannot saythat the suits were barred by limitation on the date on which they were filed in the Small Cause Court as the petitioner was fully entitled to take advantage of the summer vacation and exclude it from the period of limitation.
6. Therefore, these petitions are allowed andthe order of the learned Subordinate Judge is setaside and the suits are remanded for disposal according to law on the issues other than this which Ihave now decided, viz, about the point of limitation. There will be no order as to costs.