CHUDAMANSAO BISHRAMASAO Vs. RAMKUWAR BIRAJLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by defendant 2 and the only point foe consideration is whether the suit itself was time-barred. The cause of lotion on a promissory note arose on 6-11-1936, and on 3-11-1939 the plaintiffs brought, a suit in the Court of the First Sub-Judge Second Class, Jubbulpore.

(2.) ON 8-5-1940, that Court held that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit as no part of the cause of action arose at Jubbulpore and returned the plaint to be filed in the proper Court, which in this case was the Court of the First Sub. Judge, Second Class, Chhindwara. The 4th of May was a working day, the 5th of May was a Sunday, and the Courts closed for the summer vacation on the next day, the 6th of May. The plaint was presented on the day on which the Courts re-opened.

(3.) ON appeal by the defendants, the lower appellate Court on a full consideration of the litigation held that there had been no want of diligence in prosecuting the case in the Jubbulpore Court which ultimately found that it had no jurisdiction, and that the suit was instituted there bona fide, and the Court' pointed out conflicting rulings in the Judicial Commissioner's Court which misled the plaintiffs' counsel. The learned appellate Judge, however, did not agree that the delay after the 4th of May could be condoned. He held that it was prefectly possible for the plaintiff to reach Chhindwara on the 4th of May.