M NARAYANA REDDY Vs. H C VENKATESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/plaintiff in O. S. No. 2724/2003 on the file of Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore City, is before this Court under Section 96 of CPC, praying for setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 09. 11. 2005 made in the above said suit.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the appeal may be stated as under: the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit in O. S. No. 2724/ 2003 on the file of city Civil Judge at Bangalore City, against the respondent for recovery of money of Rs. 2,59,518/- with interest at the rate of 24 % p. a. In spite of service of summons on the defendant, he remained absent. On service of notice, the Counsel for the defendant filed vakalath on 20. 12. 2003. But written statement was not filed within a period of 90 days. Permission was sought for filing written statement. The application filed by the defendant seeking permission to file written statement was rejected on the ground that the Trial Court had no jurisdiction to condone the delay. On 02. 09. 2004, an application (I. A. No. IV) was filed under Order VII Rule 11 (d) and Section 151 of CPC, praying the Court to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. The plaintiff filed objection to LA. No. IV on 05. 01. 2005. On 09. 11. 2005, the Trial Court allowed the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 (d) of CPC and rejected the plaint. This is impugned in this appeal

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submits that the suit was not barred by limitation. But the Trial Court, by a cryptic order, allowed the application and rejected the plaint. He further submits that the suit should have been filed on 12. 04. 2003, but it was a Second Saturday. Further, 13. 04. 2003 to 15. 04. 2003 were general holidays on account of Sunday, ambedkar Jayanthi and Mahaveer Jayanthi. Therefore, the suit came to be filed on 16. 04. 2003 well-within time. But the Trial Court erred in rejecting the plaint.