NARAYANASWAMY REDDIAR Vs. K VENKATAKRISHNAN DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1020 of 1985 on the file of District Munsif, Villupuram.

(2.) THE appellant herein filed the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,000 together with interest stating that the defendant executed promissory note for the said sum on 31.8.1977 under Ex.A-1, in favour of the appellant's son. Since the appellant's son is residing elsewhere be made over the promissory note in favour of the appellant herein for the collection of the same. In spite of repeated demands, the respondent failed to pay the promissory note amount, consequently suit has been laid.

(3.) THIS Court has carefully considered the above contentions of the learned counsel appearing on both sides. There is no dispute with regard to the preposition of the learned counsel for the respondents thatO.7, Rule 6, C.P.C. is mandatory and it is for the plaintiff to plead the exclusion of the time in order to invoke the benefit of Sec.14 of the Limitation Act. But this has to be considered as to whether in all the cases that has to be done. In the case on hand, admittedly the appellant filed the suit before the Sub Court, Cuddalore, which was decreed. The first respondent herein filed an appeal before the District Court, South Arcot, Cuddalore. While disposing the appellant, learned District Judge in his judgment dated 29.6.1985 has held that the Court at Cuddalore has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit file don Ex.A-1, promissory note and hence, the decree and the judgment of the trial Court were set aside and appeal was allowed and the plaint was returned for the presentation before the proper Court. After this judgment, the appellant had presented the returned plaint on the file of District Munsif, Villupuram along with the copy of the judgment of the District Judge, South Arcot, Cuddalore in A.S.No.199 of 1983. The learned District Munsif at Villupuram entertained the suit without raising any objection with regard to the limitation. So, the fact remains that the original plaint filed by the appellant herein before the Sub Court, Cuddalore was returned by the District Court, South Arcot, Cuddalore for presentation before the proper forum and consequently, the present suit had been entertained. When the Court tried the suit or entertained the appeal having found that the same has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter, had returned the plaint enabling the plaintiff to present the same before the proper forum, I am of the view that there is no need for the plaintiff to plead for the exclusion of time as contemplated underO.7, Rule 6, C.P.C. The presentation of the plaint before forum will be only a continuation of the earlier proceeding.