Institution of suit depends on presentation in the proper court; Section 14 exclusion failed for lack of bona fide jurisdictional error.

Where the procedural scheme required a plaint to be presented in the proper court, institution of the suit occurred only on presentation to that court, not when the plaint was first taken to the District Judge for ministerial distribution. The court also held that exclusion of time under section 14 of the Limitation Act was unavailable because the earlier presentation was not shown to be a bona fide proceeding in a court without jurisdiction. On that basis, the suit remained time-barred and the decree dismissing it was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit was instituted on the date when the plaint was presented to the District Judge for distribution, or only when it reached the proper court having jurisdiction. (ii) Whether the time spent in presenting the plaint before the District Judge could be excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act.

Issue (i): Whether the suit was instituted on the date when the plaint was presented to the District Judge for distribution, or only when it reached the proper court having jurisdiction.

Analysis: Under the Code of Civil Procedure, a suit must be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it and by presentation of a plaint. The Punjab Courts Act permits the District Judge, and by delegation the proper distributing officer, to receive plaints for ministerial distribution, but that does not confer on the litigant a general option to choose any court. Where the rules require presentation at a particular court away from headquarters, institution occurs only when the plaint is presented in that proper court.

Conclusion: The suit was instituted only when the plaint was sent to and received by the proper court on 17-4-1950, and not when it was first taken to the District Judge.

Issue (ii): Whether the time spent in presenting the plaint before the District Judge could be excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act.

Analysis: Section 14 applies only where prior proceedings were prosecuted bona fide in a court without jurisdiction. On the facts, the presentation before the District Judge was not treated as bona fide within the meaning of that provision, and the plaintiff could not claim exclusion of time on that basis.

Conclusion: Section 14 of the Limitation Act did not apply.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the appellate decree was set aside, and the trial court's decree dismissing the suit as time-barred was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: When the statutory scheme requires a plaint to be presented in the proper court, institution of the suit occurs only upon such presentation, and time under section 14 of the Limitation Act is excluded only for bona fide proceedings in a court lacking jurisdiction.

---