SHIL CHAND Vs. SAMOOHIK KRISHI SAHKARI SAMITI LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision filed by the plaintiff under section 25 of the provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Tikamgarh, dismissing his suit as barred by limitation.

(2.) THE dismissal of the suit on the ground of limitation was wholly unwarranted. The plaintiff had originally instituted the suit in the Court of civil Judge, Class II, Orchha, on 20-11-1967, and on that day the suit was within time. The suit was of a small cause nature, being for recovery of rs. 928. Under the old distribution memo. , such a suit had to be presented in the Court of the Additional District Judge at Tikamgarh, as he was invested with powers under section 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act to try suits of a small causes nature above the value of Rs. 200. In Jagannath v. Harisingh (1968 MPLJ 693=1968 JLJ 566) and Poonamchand v. Ramprasad (1968 MPLJ 698=1968 J L J 583) Dixit C. J. and S. B. Sen J. held that where a suit of small cause nature is tried by an ordinary Court on the regular side, the decree rendered therein is without jurisdiction and a nullity. Consequently, the Civil Judge, Class II, Orchha returned the plaint for presentation to proper Court on 11-12-1968 after making the necessary endorsement under Order 7, rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff, who is resident of Mauranipur in district Jhansi, had to go back to his place and arrange for counsel's fee and other expenses. He then went to Tikamgarh, and the plaint was re-presented in the Court of the Additional District Judge, tikamgarh on 16-12-1968.

(3.) THE learned Additional District Judge was of the view that even excluding the time between 20-11-1967, when the plaint was presented in the court of the Civil Judge, Class II, Orchha, and 11-12-1968, when that Court returned the plaint for presentation to proper Court, under section 14 of the limitation Act, 1963, the suit was still barred by limitation. Under section 14 of the Limitation Act, the period during which the plaintiff was prosecuting the suit in a wrong Court, with due diligence, can alone be excluded. The learned Additional District Judge held that the decision in Firm Pursottam Das ganpati Rai v. Gulab Khan (AIR 1963 Pat 407) was distinguishable.