SINNAPPA NAIDU Vs. SINNAMMA NAICKEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case, the petitioners plaint was time-barred when the Court rose and he pursued the District Munsiff to his club, where he declined to receive it, after 6- 30 p.m. I am now asked to treat it, as if he had received it, because in the light of Din Ram V/s. Hari Das (1912) 34 All. 482 and Sathaya Padayachi V/s. Soundarathachi A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 448, he might have received it.

(2.) THIS cannot be done. The District Munsiff was within his discretion, in refusing to receive a plaint at his club and it is impossible to consider at this stage what might have happened if he had exercised his discretion in another way the petition is dismissed.