KONDEPU RAGHAVAYYA Vs. ELUKOORU VASUDEVAYYA CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is a merchant living in Bezwada. In September, 1935, he entered into two contracts with the respondent, a merchant of Nandyal: In April, 1936, appellant, alleging that the contracts had been broken by the respondent, filed a suit for damages against him in the Court of the District Munsiff of Bezwada. In his written statement respondent pleaded, amongst other contentions, that one of the terms of the contracts themselves was that all suits arising out of them should be filed only in Nandyal, and therefore the Bezwada Court had no jurisdiction. In reply to this contention a further sub-paragraph was inserted in the plaint in March, 1937, in which it was stated that the term relied upon by the respondent offended against Section 23 of the Contract Act. The District Munsiff of Bezwada held that he had no jurisdiction to try the suit and returned the plaint. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada confirmed this decision.

(2.) Appellant thereupon presented the plaint in the Court of the District Munsiff of Nandyal on 10 January, 1940. Respondent pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. Both the learned District Munsiff and the learned Subordinate Judge of Kurnel have accepted this view and dismissed the suit. Hence the present second appeal.

(3.) The question of limitation depends upon whether the appellant can or cannot take advantage of the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. If he can, even to the extent of excluding only the period spent in the trial of the suit by the District Munsiff, Bezwada, his suit in Nandyal will be in time. If he cannot, it is clearly barred. The question which must therefore be decided is whether the appellant in prosecuting his suit in Bezwada was acting in good faith, i.e., with due care and attention.