BINODILAL Vs. SATYENDRASINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiff who is the mortgagee of the property in question (which later on he leased to the mortgagors who are the Defendants in this case) brought this suit on the basis of a rent -note for the recovery of arrears of rent and also for eviction of the Defendants. The suit was originally filed before the District Judge, Shajapur and was numbered as Civil Original Suit No. 3 of Samvat 1992.

(2.) IT is frankly conceded by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that when after the return of the plaint by the District Judge, Shajapur, the suit was filed before the High Court, it was beyond time and that the plaint did not contain any express statement of the ground on which exemption from limitation was sought. But it is contended that there was an endorsement of the District Judge, who returned the plaint and that the endorsement contained the date of original presentation as well as the date of the return of the plaint.

(3.) IN - 'Sukhbir Singh v. Piarelal', AIR 1923 Lah 591 (A), a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in a similar case has observed.