1. The District Judge is clearly wrong in holding that the application is barred by limitation, because it was re-presented some three months after the date of its return by the District Munsif. The applicant is entitled to the deduction of the time spent in the District Munsif's Court under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. There is no suggestion in the case that the petitioner was lacking in due diligence in prosecuting his proceeding before the District Munsif.
2. Mr. Prakasam, for the respondent, takes the objection that the plaint does not state in terms, as it should under Section 50 of the Civil Procedure Code, that the petitioner was entitled to the deduction of the time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act by reason of his prosecution of the previous proceeding with due diligence in another Court. If this objection had been taken in the Court of first instance, we have no doubt that the proper order would have been to require the plaintiff to supply the omission. But the objection not having been taken there, we do not think that Mr. Prakasam should be allowed to take it here.
3. We may, moreover, observe that the application that was presented in the District Court was on the identical paper that was presented in the District Munsif's Court and it bore on the back of it the dates of presentation and return in the District Munsif's Court. We think it is open to us to treat these particulars which are endorsed on the back of the plaint as a sufficient compliance with the requirements of Section 50 of the Civil Procedure Code.
4. We allow the appeal and remand the case to the District Court to re-place it upon the file and deal with it according to law. Costs hitherto incurred will be provided for in the decree that may be passed by the District Court.