1. The plaintiffs attached certain properties in executionof a decree against defendant No. 9. Some of the other defendants claimed thesame and were successful. The claims were allowed on the 3rd of September 1908and the plaintiffs brought this suit on the 2nd of September 1909 in the Courtof the Munsif of Dacca. The defendants objected to the valuation of the suitand on the 23rd of June 1910, the learned Munsif held that the suit wasundervalued and ordered the plaint to be returned and directed the plaintiffs topay costs to the contending defendants. The plaint was accordingly returned onthe 27th of June. The costs payable by the plaintiffs to the contendingdefendants were subsequently calculated in the office and on the 30th June anorder fixing the amount at Rs. 25 was recorded in the order-sheet. Whenreturning the plaint on the 27th of June the learned Munsif directed that theplaint might be re filed in the proper Court within 5 days. The plaint wasactually re-filed on the 1st of July 1910, within the 5 days so allowed. It iscontended, however, that the suit is barred by limitation as the learned Munsifhad no authority to grant the additional 5 days. The plaintiffs contend, first,that the Munsif was right in granting time and secondly, that the proceeding inthe Munsifs Court ended on the 30th of June when the order assessing costs wasmade, and in either case they are within time. Explanation 1 to Section 14 ofthe Limitation Act lays down that in excluding the time during which a formersuit was pending the day on which the suit was instituted and the day on whichthe proceedings therein ended shall both be counted. No further time is allowedas in Clause 2 for going from one Court to another. There is no other provisionin the Limitation Act or in the Civil Procedure Code for allowing further timeand the order allowing further time must be considered as a nullity. SeeHaridas Roy v. Sarat Chandra Dey 18 Ind. Cas. 121 [LQ/CalHC/1913/3] : 17 C.W.N. 515. This view ofthe matter might cause hardship in some cases, as the plaintiff might requiretime to secure further costs or to reach the new Court. But a plaintiff whofiles his suit on the very last date available to him under the law oflimitation takes the risk, and the law does not make any provision for suchtime except in cases coming under Clause 2 of Section 14.

2. But then if the proceedings in the suit in the MunsifsCourt ended on the 30th June the plaintiffs are still within time. Order Vil,Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, provides that on returning a plaint the Judgeshall endorse thereon the date of its presentation and return the name of theparty presenting it and a brief statement of the reasons for returning it. Thereturn of the plaint with these particulars, therefore, seems to terminate theconnection of the Court with the plaint, which it cannot entertain. So far asthis case is concerned, the costs were ordered to be paid by the order of the23rd of June, so that no further judicial act remained to be done. The costswere calculated later but the plaintiffs had nothing to do with that; they werenot prosecuting the suit in the Court of the Munsif after that Court returnedthe plaint, and the explanation cannot be read as extending the time excludedbeyond the time when the plaintiffs may be said to have been prosecuting theirsuit In this view of the matter the order for costs passed on the 30th of Junecannot be taken into consideration. The suit is, therefore, barred bylimitation and it is not necessary to consider any other question. The appealis dismissed with one set of costs to be divided among three sets ofrespondents.

.

Ganga Charan Das and Ors. vs. Akhil Chandra Saha on thedeath of Radha Raman Saha and Ors. (23.06.1916 - CALHC)