BOPPANA SEETHARAMAIAH Vs. GOLLU APPARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision petition filed by the plaintiff in a suit on the foot of a pro-note is as follows:-

(2.) What is the condition which should be satisfied so that the period of pendency of 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 Sec. 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963

(3.) The petitioner (plaintiff) laid the suit O.S. No. 192/79 in the Court of the District Munsif, Gudiwada against the defendant-respondent herein for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,845.00 being the balance of principal and interest due on a promissory note, dated 26-6-1970. The para relating to the place of cause of action is shown as Angalur within the jurisdiction of the District Munsif, Gudiwada. The date of execution of the pro-note for a sum of Rs. 1,800.00 was noted as 26-6-1970. It was mentioned in the plaint that payments of Rs. 100.00 on 6-6-1973 and Rs. 500.00 on 24-1-1975 were made under the pro-note and the suit was filed in the court of the District Munsif, Gudiwada on 23-1-1978. Thus, the suit was filed one day prior to the expiry of the period of limitation. The Office raised number of objections on different occasions and the case was registered in the court of District Munsif, Gudiwada on 13-2-1978. Ultimately the plaint was returned to the plaintiff on 17-9-1979. The plaint was represented in the court of District Munsif, Kaikalur on 6-10-1979 On 8-10-1979 the District Munsif, Kaikalur returned the plaint directing the plaintiff to state as to how the suit was within time. On 15-10-1979 the plaintiff resubmitted the plaint with the endorsement that the plaint was returned to plaintiff on 6-10-1979 but the endorsement of the court on the plaint does Dot show that it was returned on 6-10-1979. After hearing both the parties on the question of limitation, the District Munsif, Kaikalur passed the impugned order dismissing the suit as barred by limitation.