1964 (2) TMI 106

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a return of it and filed the same on the same day in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, which is the proper court. The appellant's claimed the benefit of Ss. 4 and 14 of the Limitation Act and contended that the suit was within time. The courts below declined to accept that view and concurred in dismissing the suit as out of time. 2. What is contended for the appellants is that if the time between 8-10-1957 and 18-10-1957, namely, 42 days is added on, under S. 14 of the Limitation Act, to the period of three years, the last date for filing the plaint would be 17-11-1957, and that day being a holiday, applying S. 4 to the case, the plaint filed on 18-11-1957 in the proper court would be in time. On the other hand, the argume....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or in a court of appeal, against the defendant should be excluded, where the proceeding is founded upon the same cause of action and is prosecuted in good faith in a curt which form defect of jurisdiction, or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. In effect, what the section enables is to add to the period of limitation prescribed, the period which the plaintiff who filed the plaint in the wrong court is entitled under its provisions to exclude. Reading Ss. 4 and 14 together, there is no indication in the language used in them that, where on the date the plaint is filed in a wrong court, it is out of time,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... S. 14, a plaint otherwise barred is sought to be brought within time. Such a case, in my opinion, is not saved from limitation by S. 14. 5. The interpretation I have placed on the two sections is, I think, supported by. In that case the preliminary decree was passed on 7-6-1920, but an application for final decree was made on 6-8-1923. The question was whether it was in time. Between 23-12-1920 and 8-11-1921, the appellants before the Privy Council were only seeking execution of the preliminary decree. The Privy Council held that this period could not be excluded and added on to the period of limitation, for the application pending during that period in the wrong court was not an application for passing a final decree. The second period s....