MUTHUKANNI MUDALIAR Vs. ANDAPPA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case Involves an interpretation of SECTION 13, Limitation Act, and was referred by Satya-narayana Rao and Rajagopalan JJ. to a Pull Bench because they were of opinion that the decision in - 'Rathina Thevan v. Packirlsami The-van', AIR 1928 Mad 1038 (A) on the authority of which the case was disposed of in the Courts below required reconsideration.

(2.) The suit which was filed in the Court of District Munsif of Paramakudi was for the recovery from "two defendants of a sum of Rs. . 1466-10-4 alleged to be diie on account of dealings had by the defendants with the plaintiff's shop from 23-81941 to 18-10-1941 at Rangoon. The suit was filed'in 1946. It was stated in the plaint that the suit claim was not barred because the defendants had all along been in Rangoon and the second defendant alone had returned to India two months prior to the suit, the first/defendant still remaining in Burma. The first defendant allowed the suit to proceed-ex parte. The second defendant filed a written statement admitting the dealings but pleading that the entire amount due to the plaintiff had been paid. He also took the further plea that the suit was barred by limitation. The two main issues framed for trial were (1). whether the discharge pleaded by the second defendant is true, and (2) whether the suit is in time. The District Munsif, and on appeal Subordinate Judge of Ramned, found that the discharge pleaded was not true and that the suit was barred by time. The suit was therefore dismissed. The plaintiff fs the appellant.

(3.) It is ouite clear that the suit was not maintainable against the first defendant. Admittedly, he was a resident of Burma on the date of the institution of the suit and no part of the cause of action had arisen in India. The District Munsif had no Jurisdiction to entertain the suit against the first defendant (vide Section 20 of the . Civil P. C.).