HVENKATANARAYANA Vs. H RSESHAGIRI RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the defendant in the court below, and, at one stage, he was held to he not an agriculturist, as defined by the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act- It was the plaintiff who alleged that he was an agriculturist, and this allegation he made, for the purpose of obtaining the benefit of the larger period of limitation, prescribed by Section 24 of the Act. From that finding of the Court below, the plaintiff presented a revision petition to this Court, and this Court set aside the finding of the Court below and remanded the matter to it for disposal according to law, and for the determination of the question whether the defendant was an agriculturist, by the application of the amended definition, of an agriculturist contained in the Act, after its amendment by Mysore Act No. XIII of 1953. The direction given by this Court in that revision petition reads: "The finding is accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded to the Court below for disposal according to law." Meanwhile, the plaintiff's suit had been dismissed by the Court below on the basis of its finding that the defendant was not an agriculturist.

(2.) When the matter went back to the Court below, the defendant urged that it was no longer possible for the Court below to make an adjudication on the question whether the defendant was an agriculturist, since the suit in which that adjudication could have been made had itself come to an end by its dismissal during the pendency of the revision petition in this Court.

(3.) That contention was negatived and the Court below held that by reason of the order made by this Court in the revision petition, the suit must be deemed to have been revived.