MIRA MOHIDIN ROWTHEN Vs. NALLAPERUMAL PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the plaintiffs wish to exclude the period from the 14th June 1908 (expiry of 3 years from date of cause of action) to the 6th July 1908 (date of filing the plaint in the Madura Sub-Court as well as the period from the 6th July 1908 onwards and it is necessary for them to do so in order to save limitation admittedly. Section 14 of the Limitation Act, cannot be extended to cover the period from the 14th June 1908 to 6th July 1908. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that it is covered by Section 4 and it is argued, apparently with reason, that the concessions awarded by the different sections of the Limitation Act are independent and cumulative. On the other hand, it is not denied that the proper court in which the suit should have been filed re opened before the 6th July 1908 and respondents vakil quoted the decision in A.C. Chackerbutty v. G.M. Dutt (1875) 24 W.R. 26 as authority for holding that in such circumstances Section 4 cannot operate in plaintiff s favour. Appellants vakil does not attempt to distinguish this case but merely argues that the decision is wrong. I am not only prepared to follow the ruling in question but entirely concur in it.

(2.) I consider that the only effect of Section 4 is to extend the period of limitation from the 14th June 1908 to the date of reopening of the proper courts. When that date expired and no plaint was presented the suit became effectively time-barred, and Section 14 cannot assist plaintiffs, inasmuch as it could only take effect from the 6th July, 1908.

(3.) I would dismiss the appeal with costs. Spencer, J.