(PAITCHAIKALA) MANGAMMA Vs. NALLAMTI PEDA AMMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the suit out of which this Civil Revision Petition arises an award was filed and the first defendant applied to have the award set aside. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that this application was made more than ten days after the award was filed, and that it was therefore out of date. In coming to this conclusion, he has failed to apply the provision in Section 12 (4) of the Limitation Act that in computing limitation for this purpose the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded. It is admitted that, if this be done, the 1 defendant's application would be within time.

(2.) I think it is clear that the learned Subordinate Judge's error consisted in a failure to realise that the time taken to procure a copy was a relevent factor, and not as the petitioner here has endeavoured to argue, that he merely overlooked the circumstance that four days were so occupied. His error, in other words, was an error in applying the law of limitation and not an erroneous omission to consider facts which upon the view which he should have taken of the law, ought to have been considered. The question for me first to decide is therefore whether the dismissal of a claim on the ground that it is time barred amounts to a failure to exercise a jurisdiction with which the Court is vested, so that Section 115 Code of Civil Prodedure will enable the order to be revised.

(3.) The meaning of the word "jurisdiction" in this section has been considered by Woodroffe, J., in Shew Prosad V/s. Ramchandar [1914] 41 Cal. 323 The term, according to one view he says: is here used in the ordinary sense, that is a jurisdiction local, pecuniary, personal or with reference to the subject matter of the suit.