Skip to content


The Receiver of the Nidadavole and Medur Estates Vs. K. Suraparazu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in29Ind.Cas.449
AppellantThe Receiver of the Nidadavole and Medur Estates
RespondentK. Suraparazu and ors.
Excerpt:
madras estates land act (i of 1908), section 192 - plaint, valid presentation of--limitation act (ix. of 1908), section 4--officer authorized to receive plaints absent from headquarters--court, whether closed--madras civil rules of practice, rule 14, applicability of. - .....1, provides that every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint to the court or such officer as it appoints in this behalf. it is, therefore, open to the collector to appoint an officer to whom plaints may be presented, but this, we understand, has not been done.2. it is clear that rule 14 of the civil rules of practice does not apply to proceedings before a revenue court, and we cannot accept the contention that, when the plaintiff sought to present his plaint in this case, the court was closed within the meaning of section 4 of the limitation act.3. we must accordingly answer the question in the affirmative.
Judgment:

1. We think the words 'all suits, appeals and other proceedings under this Act,' in Section 192 of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, may be construed as including the institution of a suit by the presentation of a plaint. The result is that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to the presentation of a plaint in a suit under the Estates Land Act. Under Section 121 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the rules in the first Schedule have effect as if enacted in the body of the Act. Order IV, Rule 1, provides that every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint to the Court or such officer as it appoints in this behalf. It is, therefore, open to the Collector to appoint an officer to whom plaints may be presented, but this, we understand, has not been done.

2. It is clear that Rule 14 of the Civil Rules of Practice does not apply to proceedings before a Revenue Court, and we cannot accept the contention that, when the plaintiff sought to present his plaint in this case, the Court was closed within the meaning of Section 4 of the Limitation Act.

3. We must accordingly answer the question in the affirmative.


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