Mohamad Noor, J.This appeal arises out of a simple money suit based on a hand-note dated 27th December 1928, executed by the guardian of the defendant who is a minor and is represented by a guardian ad litem appointed by the Court. The question involved is that of limitation. The trial Court dismissed the suit as barred but the lower Appellate Court has decreed it. The question of limitation arises thus.

2. The plaintiff instituted the suit in the Court of the Munaif of Muzaffarpur on 23rd December 1931. On 27th February 1933, the Munsif held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and ordered the plaint to be returned and cost to be paid to the defendant. Decree was prepared and signed on 6th March and plaint was returned to the plaintiffs pleader on 7th March and was presented to the Munsif of Patna on 15th March.

3. The question is when the proceeding before the Munsif of Muzaffarpur should be held to have terminated. If it terminated on 27th February 1933, when the order of the return of the plaint was passed, then the suit is obviously barred. This was the view taken by the trial Court. If, on the other hand, the date of termination of the proceeding be taken 6th March when the decree was prepared and signed, then the suit was in time, and this view has been adopted by the learned Subordinate Judge in the Court of Appeal below.

4. In my opinion the learned Subordinate Judge was right. It is obvious that had the plaint been returned on 27th February 1933, there would have been left no material on the record from which a decree could have been prepared. The preparation of a formal decree requires the name and description of the parties, the value of the suit, the date and details of the cause of action.

5. As far as I know there is no other paper in the record of a case from which these materials can be obtained excepting the plaint. In the absence of anything to the contrary, the learned Subordinate Judge was right in holding that the plaint could not be returned to the plaintiff before the signing of the decree on 6th March 1933. Even if 6th March be technically not the date of the termination of the proceeding the period between 27th February and 6th March must be taken to be the period beyond the control of the plaintiff. There is nothing to show that the Court or its officer attempted to return the plaint to the plaintiff, and it could not be done on account of any default on his part.

6. There is however one matter in which I think the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge should be modified. This is in respect of interest which has been decreed at the stipulated rate of fifteen annas percent per month. I would reduce it to six per cent per annum from the date of the hand-note to the date of the institution of the suit.

7. This will be the only mortification in the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge and with this modification the appeal is dismissed with costs.