Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.YETHIRAJULU
J.Venkatramana Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Kanakagari Bhakthavatsalaiah - Respondent
Decided On : 09-02-02
Held : Period during which a proceeding was pending in a wrong court from the date of its presentation till the date of return shall be excluded from the total period for the purpose of computation of limitation, when it was prosecuted in the said Court with a bona fide impression that the said Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
The legal position makes it crystal clear that the period from the date of return of the plaint by the wrong court till the date of presentation to the proper court cannot be excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation and the court which returned the plaint has no power to grant time. Even if the wrong court grants time for representation of the plaint before a proper court, it will not save the period of limitation. Therefore the period from the date of return of the plaint by the wrong court till the date of presentation of the plaint to the proper court is not liable to be excluded under Sec. 14 of the Limitation Act and the court has not power to grant time for representation of the plaint when it was presented to the court of first instance on the last date of limitation.
( 1 ) SA No. 172 of 1992 is preferred against the judgment and decree in AS No. 13 of 1990 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Srikalahasthi confirming the judgment and decree in OS No. 67 of 1986 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, srikalahasthi.
( 2 ) SA No. 173 of 1992 is preferred against the judgment and decree in AS no. 12 of 1990 on the file of Sub-Judge, srikalahasthi confirming the judgment and decree in OS No. 119 of 1985 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, srikalahasthi.
( 3 ) THE appellants in both the appeals are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in the respective suits. Both the suits were filed for recovery of money from the defendants due under promissory notes. Though the defendants in both the suits are common, the plaintiff in os No. 67 of 1986 is different from the plaintiff in OS No. 119 of 1985. SA No. 172 of 1992
( 4 ) THE factual matrix in OS No. 67 of 1986 is asunder: the plaintiff averred that on 9-6-1981 the defendants borrowed from him a sum of Rs. 9,000/- and jointly executed the suit promissory note promising to repay the same on demand or order with interest at 12% per annum. Despite repeated demands the defendants did not choose to repay the amount. Hence the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,240/- being the principal and interest as on the date of filing of the suit with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum.
( 5 ) THE 1st defendant resisted that suit contending that though the defendants executed the suit promissory note on 9-6-1981 for Rs. 9,000/- in favour of the plaintiff they did not receive consideration under the suit promissory note and it was executed at the instance of b. Gangi Subbarami Reddy in renewal of the earlier debt due to him. The first defendant further stated that the Court in which the suit was presented has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.
( 6 ) THE 2nd defendant adopted the written statement of the 1 st defendant.
( 7 ) ON the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed appropriate issues.
( 8 ) BOTH parties did not adduce any evidence and they filed a Memo in the trial court to that effect.
( 9 ) THE trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of both parties held that the suit promissory note is supported by consideration and accordingly dismissed the suit through its judgment dated 19-3-1990 on the ground that it is barred by limitation.
( 10 ) THE plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court preferred AS No. 13 of 1990 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Srikalahasthi, but the appeal was also dismissed by the 1st appellate court through its judgment dated 16-9-1991 confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
( 11 ) THE plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the first appellate court preferred this appeal challenging its validity and legality. SA No. 173 of 1992
( 12 ) THE factual matrix leading to the filing of this appeal culled out from the pleadings of both the parties in OS No. 119 of 1985 is as under:
( 13 ) THE plaintiff averred that on 11-6-1981 the defendants borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from him and executed the suit promissory note jointly promising to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum either on demand or order. The defendants failed to repay the amount despite repeated demands. Hence the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,600/- being the principal and interest as on the date of filing the suit with subsequent interest at 12% per annum.
( 14 ) THE 1st defendant resisted the suit by contending that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration, though both the defendants executed the same. The 1st defendant further contended that they executed the suit promissory note at the instance of B. Gangi Subbarami reddy in renewal of the earlier debt due to him and that the Court where the suit was instituted has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the same. The defendants h
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
