CHHAJU RAM Vs. VIDYA WANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision is directed against the decision of the Sub -judge at Jammu dismissing the plaintiffs suit on the ground that it is barred by limitation. It is common ground that in view of the provisions of S. 5 of the Agriculturists Relief Act only a revision and not an appeal lies.

(2.) THE facts lie within a brief compass and are not in dispute. The plaintiff instituted the suit in the court of the Sub -judge at Jammu on 8 -7 -60. The last day of limitation for instituting it was 5 -7 -60, if the benefit of S. 4 of the Limitation Act was to be denied to the plaintiff. The contention on behalf of the plaintiff -petitioner is that S. 4 of the Limitation Act applied to his case as the 5th, 6th and 7th of July were public holidays and that he was therefore entitled to present his plaint in court on the next working day, namely 8 -7 -60, without coming under the ban of limitation. If this contention is well founded, the plaintiffs suit cannot be held to be time -barred. But the learned counsel for the defendant -respondent urges that 5 -7 -60 was a working day for the court and that, therefore, the failure of the plaintiff to institute the suit on that day was fatal to its maintainability. The controversy between the parties has been occasioned by a change made by the State Government in its notification of holidays for subordinate civil courts. In the previous notification 5th and 6th July were declared public holidays, but by a subsequent order the State Government made 6th and 7th July public holidays and declared 5th a working day. This order of the State Government was published in the Government Gazette only on 7th July 1960 and not earlier. There is nothing to show that the plaintiff was aware on or before the 5th July that the Government had converted 5th July into a working day. Nor is there anything to indicate that the Government has made adequate publication of its order so as to cause the plaintiff reasonably to be so aware. Yet, the contention on the side of the defendant is that as the 5th was a working day on account of the change effected by the order of the Government published in the Gazette of 7th July 1960, the plaintiff was in law obliged to institute the suit on the 5th.

(3.) THE holidays for subordinate civil courts appear to have been declared by the Government under S. 37 (1) of the Civil Courts Act which reads: -