JAS KARAN Vs. BHANWARLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the plain-tiff Jaskaran against the judgment of the Civil judge, Sikar dated 27-5-1952 in a suit for recovery o money by which he returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court under Order 7, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) IT is unnecessary to state the facts of this case at length in view of the conclusion at which I have arrived that this appeal must go back to the learned district Judge concerned in whose court it was originally filed for disposal on merits. A few facts may, however, be stated which have culminated in the presentation of this appeal here.

(3.) THE suit was filed by the plaintiff on 25-5-1950 in the Court of the Civil Judge, sambhar and eventually it was disposed of by the Civil Judge, Sikar to whom it had been transferred in the meantime. The Civil Judge decided all the other issues except that of jurisdiction in favour of the plaintiff, but as he came to the finding that the defendants did not actually live within the territorial jurisdiction of his court, he concluded that he had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the suit and in that view ordered the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the aforesaid Order dated 27-5-1952 in the court of the District Judge, Sikar on the 2nd July, 1952. It appears that this appeal was registered in the Court of the learned District Judge, Sikar, and, thence on the abolition of that Court, it was transferred to the Court of the District Judge, jhunjhanu where it remained pending till 19-10-1954. By an order passed on the last mentioned date, the learned District Judge, jhunjhanu returned the memorandum of appeal to the Advocate for the plaintiff-appellant Jaskaran for presentation in this Court. Thereupon, the appeal was actually filed in this Court on 29-10-1954. It is convenient to mention at this stage that the Court was closed from 20-10-1954 to 28-10-1954 on account of Dewali holidays. The office raised the question that the appeal was barred by limitation. The appeal was, however, admitted by a Division Bench subject to objection by the respondents. It is to be regretted that no one has appeared on their behalf in this Court.