RAMGOPAL MANDAL Vs. KUMAR KAMALA RANJAN ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question in this appeal is whether the suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiffs were the Dar patnidars and they were suing the Zemindar and the Patnidars for possession of certain Chowkidari Chakran lands which had bier resumed and settled by Government with" the Zemindar. In their plaint the plaintiffs stated that the Settlement was made by the Government under the provisions of Acts VI of 1870 on 16th May l999 and they further alleged that the cause of action arose oil that day, The suit was originally filed in the Munsifs Court on 15th May 1911, one day within 12 years from the data specified in the plaint. On 4th May 1912 the plaint was returned by the Munsif for presentation to the proper Court, the Munsif finding that he had no jurisdiction. The Munsif directed that it should be presented to the proper Court within one month. The plaint was actually filed in the Subordinate Judge s Court on 1st June 1912.

(2.) Two questions arose? (1) whether the Munsif had any authority to extend the period of limitation for one month or any other time, and (2) what Article of the Limitation Act applies to the suit and whether it is barred by time.

(3.) As to the first point, it is clear that; the Munsif could have no such power. If any Court had power to alter the period within which a suit might be presented, the Limitation Act would soon become a dead letter. It was suggested that the Munsif might Have such power under Section 151 of the new Code arid were told that a Bench of this Court had expressed such an opinion. The case is not reported; but there is a reported case, Hqridas Roy v. Sarat Chandra Roy (2) 18 Ind. cas.121; 170 w. N. 515, which takes a contrary view and distinctly lays down that the only period which can be excluded is that provided for in Section 14 of the Limitation Act. With this opinion we entirely agree. In that view of the case, excluding under Section (4 the period from 15th May 19ll to 4th May J 912, in order to be within time the suit must have been filed in the proper Court at the latest on the 5th May. Being filed on 1st June 1912 it was clearly out of time if the time runs from 15th May, as alleged by the plaintiffs in their plaint. In the Court of first instance, as also in the lower Appellate Court, this was the case which was put forward by the plaintiffs. In second appeal it has been urged on their behalf that the date should not be from the actual settlement by the Government with the Zamindar but from some subsequent date not specified, when it is said that the Zemindar s possession became adverse to the Putnidars and the Dar-putnidars. It was suggested by the appellants Pleader that it might be 28th August 1911, when the Zemindar first settled the lands.