RAM NATH CHITROY KONWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein had obtained a decree from the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, in suit No. 489/57 for a sum of Rs. 24,430.65 paise against the Union of India. The latter filed an appeal in the High Court and the decree of the Subordinate Judge was modified by the High Court by reducing the decree amount to Rs. 18,420.82 paise. Thereafter, the Union of India filed an application in the Court of the Subordinate Judge under section 144 Civil Procedure Code for restitution of a sum of Rs. 6,009.83 paise. This application was filed on 10-6-1968. An objection was raised by the appellant on the ground that the monetary jurisdiction of the Court of the Subordinate Judge having been reduced to Rs. 25,000 by the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 with effect from 5th September, 1966, the said Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the Union of India. The matter was kept pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge till 8-8-1969 when it was conceded by the learned counsel for the Union of India that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. Instead of returning the application for presentation before the proper Court, the learned Subordinate Judge sent the applcation to the District Judge for being forwarded to the High Court as the High Court only was competent to try suits of the value of more than Rs. 25,000. But before the District Judge could forward the application to the High Court, the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 1969 came into force and it raised the monetary jurisdiction of the Court of the Subordinate Judge to Rs. 50,000. Therefore, the District Judge sent back the application to the Subordinate Judge for disposal. The appellant thereupon raised a fresh contention, namely, that the application must be deemed to have been presented for the first time on 5th November, 1969 which was the date on which the application was sent back by the District Judge to the Court of the Subordinate Judge and that the application was barred by time. The learned Subordinate Judge thereupon framed the following issues :-

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge held both these issues in favour of the Union of India and overruled the objections raised by the appellant on the basis of limitation. The appellant has filed the present appeal against this finding of the learned Subordinate Judge.

(3.) Two questions arise for consideration in this appeal, namely,-