MOOKEN DEVASSY OUSEPH AND SONS Vs. RAJAPPAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision filed by the plaintiff in a suit on accounts is: What is the condition which should be satisfied so that the period of pendency of a suit filed in a court which had no jurisdiction to try the same can be excluded in computing the period of limitation for the suit If the plaintiff did not act with due care and attention and filed the suit in a wrong court can he take shelter under S.14 of the Limitation Act, 1963

(2.) The plaintiff, a partnership doing business, had a petrol bunk at Parur within the jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court, Parur. The defendant residing within the jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court, Perumbavoor purchased petrol and oil from the hunk. As per the accounts kept by the plaintiffs at their head office at Mattancherry some amounts were due from the defendant. For that a suit was instituted before the Munsiff's Court, Cochin. After trial, the Munsiffs Court, Cochin found that it had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and returned the plaint for presentation before the proper court. The plaint was taken back and then filed before the Munsiff's Court, Parur. That court held that the plaintiff was entitled to exclude the time taken for prosecuting the case before the Munsiff's Court, Cochin under S.14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and decreed the suit for that portion of the plaint claim which was not barred by limitation. Against the above judgment and decree, the defendant filed an appeal before the Additional District Court, Parur. The Additional District Judge held that the plaintiff did not act with due care and attention in filing the suit before the Munsiff's Court, Cochin and hence the plaintiff was not entitled to exclude the time taken for prosecuting the case before that court under S.14 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly, the lower appellate court set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has challenged the above judgment and decree of the court below in this civil revision.

(3.) S.14(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963, for short the Limitation Act, reads: