GHINOO CHAUDHURI Vs. RAMJAPU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two applications to revise the orders of the Small Cause Court Judge refusing to allow rehearing under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P.C., of Small Cause Court suits which had been decreed against the petitioner one in 1932 and one in 1934. The applications were both presented on the same date, namely 11th January 1936 but are directed against different respondents, the plaintiffs of the two Small Cause Court suits having been different.

(2.) The applicant in each case alleged that the summonses of the original suits had been suppressed and that he came to know of the proceedings in each case for the first time on 7 January 1936. The applications as presented appear to have been found defective. They were amended on 25 January 1936. It was then observed that the security bonds should be filed in time duly registered. Then the Court fixed 8 February 1936 for further orders. The bonds were filed on 8th February. The applications were heard together and were dismissed on 18 May 1936, the trial Court observing that the bonds had been filed after the period of limitation counting time from the date of the petitioner's alleged knowledge. The petitioner has thereupon moved this Court on the ground that time having been allowed by the Small Cause Court Judge to 8 February 1936 for the furnishing of the security bond, he should not have been considered to be out of time so long as he furnished the security bond by the date fixed by the Court.

(3.) I am unable to read the Court's order of 21 January 1936 as by implication extending the time for furnishing the security bonds 8 February was no doubt fixed for further proceedings in the case, but when the order was that the applicant should file the security bond duly registered in time, the meaning must have been that the bond was to be filed within the period of limitation, and the question whether it had been so filed in time would be considered later.