LATADEVI Vs. RAMNATH S O BABULAL CHAURASIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was the defendant before the civil judge (Junior Division) Nagpur, in Regular Civil Suit No. 594 of 1984 is challenging the order passed by that Court on 19-10-1985 holding that the plaintiff was diligently prosecuting his remedy before the Small Cause Court in between the institution of small cause suit from 12-9-1979 and returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court on 18-4-1984.

(2.) The following facts will be necessary for appreciating the real controversy. Small Cause Suit No. 1219/79 was instituted by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 on 10-7-1979 for eviction, mesne profits charges etc. etc. The suit proceeded before the Small Causes Court. A defence was raised that the Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction. This point was decided on merits by the Small Causes Court at Nagpur on 17-7-1983. It was held that the Small Causes had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit. This order came to be challenged before the High Court in revision. The High Court decided this revision some time on 6-2-1984 holding that the Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide that suit. Thereafter, when the Small causes Court received the writ from this Court, it passed on order on 12-3-1984 directing the plaintiff and the defendant to appear before the Court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Nagpur on 16-4-1984. The endorsement on the plaint shows that the plaint was actually returned to the plaintiff on 18-4-1984 and it is an admitted position that on the very day the plaint was filed before the Civil Judges (Senior Division) Nagpur. These facts are uncontroverted.

(3.) As the High Court held that the Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the suit came to be presented before the Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Nagpur and that too on 18-4-1984. Obviously the question of interpretation and applicability of section 14 of the Limitation Act came. It was strenuously urged on behalf of the present petitioner that section 14 of the Limitation Act enable the Court to exclude the time from commencement of the proceedings till the termination of the proceedings. It was urged that in any case the proceedings terminated in view of the order passed by the High Court on 6-2-1984 holding that the Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction. It was, therefore, urged that though the time commenced running form the institution of this suit till 6-2-1984 till the decision. High Court could be legitimately excluded under section 14(1), the plaintiff was not entitled as of right to the execution of the period commencing thereafter till the expiry of 18-4-1984. Another point which was urged before me was that, it was necessary for the plaintiff to explain to the satisfaction of the Court the action taken by him during the intervening period, as that would be relevant for determining whether the plaintiff acted diligently or not . It was the contention of Mr. Bobde that the plaintiff has no where shown either in the affidavit or otherwise that he had ben prosecuting his remedies diligently before wrong Court. This point will have to be examined in details.