Skip to content


Sree Raja Venkata Rangaya and ors. Vs. Murela Venkaya and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in14Ind.Cas.259
AppellantSree Raja Venkata Rangaya and ors.
RespondentMurela Venkaya and ors.
Excerpt:
limitation act (ix of 1908), section 14 - return of plaint for presentation to proper court--appeal against the order--dismissal of appeal--revision to high court--right of plaintiff to deduct time occupied in the pendency of revision proceedings. - - the order of the district judge was final in the sense that no appeal lay against it and i do not think it can be held that plaintiff was acting in good faith (i......according to him, are three in number. the first is from 29th september 1906 when he filed his plaint in the district muusif's court to 19fch july 1907 when it was returned to him. he appealed against the district munsif's order returning the plaint, and his appeal, which was eventually dismissed, was pending in the district court from 12th august 1907 to 31sfc october 1907. this is the second period. after this, he filed a revision petition in this court which was dismissed on 29th october 190.}. this is the third period.2. he is apparently entitled to invoke the protection of section 14 for the first two periods, but not, in my opinion, for the third. section 14 says nothing about a court of revision. the order of the district judge was final in the sense that no appeal lay against.....
Judgment:

Ayling, J.

1. The cause of action arose in September 1904 and plaintiff is entitled to file his suit in the proper Court within a period from that time of 3 years plus any periods for which he is entitled to claim exclusion under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. These, according to him, are three in number. The first is from 29th September 1906 when he filed his plaint in the District Muusif's Court to 19fch July 1907 when it was returned to him. He appealed against the District Munsif's order returning the plaint, and his appeal, which was eventually dismissed, was pending in the District Court from 12th August 1907 to 31sfc October 1907. This is the second period. After this, he filed a revision petition in this Court which was dismissed on 29th October 190.}. This is the third period.

2. He is apparently entitled to invoke the protection of Section 14 for the first two periods, but not, in my opinion, for the third. Section 14 says nothing about a Court of Revision. The order of the District Judge was final in the sense that no appeal lay against it and I do not think it can be held that plaintiff was acting in good faith (i.e., with due care and caution) in applying to get this order revised after two competent Courts had decided against him.

3. In my opinion, he is not entitled to the exclusion of this period and his suit is time-barred.

4. The petition is dismissed with casts.


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