TMI Blog1964 (2) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 argument for the respondent is that the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, S. 14 will be of any avail. The two s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 sought to be taken advantage of by the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l in regard to that period. That clearly lays down in effect the propositions in my opinion, that the benefit of S. 4 could not both be suffixed and prefixed to the period of limitation as calculated under S. 14. In other words, the decision of the Privy Council was that where a plaint was filed in a wrong court out of time, it could not be brought within the period of limitation by applying S. 14. In view of this clear ruling of the Privy Council, I do not think it necessary to refer to cases in Ummathu v. Pathumma: AIR 1921 Mad 654, Ramalingam Aiyar v. Subbier 8 MLW 256: AIR 1919 Mad 845 and Govindasami Padayachi v. Sami Padayachi 43 ML J 579: AIR 923 Mad 114 which took much the same view of the scope and effect of Ss. 4 and 14 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
