( 1 ) THIS revision petition at the instance of the plaintiff arises out of a suit filed for recovery of the amount on the foot of a pronote dated 10-5-1980. The trial court while holdinp that the promissory note is valid and binding upon the defendant however held that the suit is barred by limitation as the suit filed on 6-6-1983 is not saved by Section 4 of the limitation Act and Sec. 14 of the Limitation Act does not come to the rescue in the circumstances.

( 2 ) THE suit was presented in the court of the District Munsif, Visakhapatnam on 6-6-1983 on reopening the court after summer vacation. The suit should have been normally filed on 10-5-1983 but in view of the vacation the suit was filed on the reopening day. It is not in dispute that in view of the notification published in A P Gazette on 6-6-1983 the District Munsif s Court had no jurisdiction and the Subordinate judge s Court alone had jurisdiction. The district Munsif s Court, Visakhapatnam with an endorsement returned the plaint for presentation to proper court within 7 days, and the said endorsement was signed on 25-6-1983 and the plaint was actually taken return on 28-6-1983 and the same was represented before the court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, visakhapatnam on the same day As the plaint was returned on 28-6-1983 it was presented before the proper court on the very same day without losing any time. It was contended before the court below that the period from 6-6-1983 to 28-6-1983 has to be excluded in view of sec. 14 of the Limitation Act and the suit is not barred by limitation. The court below held that the presentation of plaint on 6-6-1983 itself is barred by limitation as it was not filed before proper court so as to be saved by Section 4 of the limitation Act.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the time taken in prosecuting before the wrong forum has to be excluded under -Sec, 14 and if the period from presentation to the return of the plaint before the Munsif s Court is excluded the suit is not barred by limitation and Sec. 4 is not applicable.

( 4 ) SECTION 4 of the Limitation Act is as follows :-"4. Expiry of prescribed period when court is closed : Where the prescribed period for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the court is closed, the suit, appeal application may be instituted, preferred or made on the day when the court reopens. Explanation : A court shall be deemed to be clesed on any day within the meaning of this section if during any part of its normal working hours it remains closed on that day". In the event of closure of the Court for any reason the plaint can be presented on the reopening day and such presentation is not barred by limitation in view of Sec. 4 of the Limitation Act. Even though the time for filing the suit expires on any day during the vacation the suit will not be barred by limitation provided the suit is presented on the reopening day. In maqbul Ahmad v. Pratap Narain Singh (1) air 1935 P C 85 it is held that where the period of limitation prescribed expires on a day when the court is closed the application may be made on the day when the court reopens and the court in sec. 4 means the proper court in which the application sought to have been made. In Amar Chand v. Union of India (2) AIR 1973 S C 313 the suit was filed in the court of the Subordinate Judge on 2-3-1950 as 1-3-1959 was a day on whieh the court was closed. By order dated 28-10-1959 the plaint was returned for presentation to the proper court in view of want of territorial jurisdiction. The plaint was thereafter presented in the subordinate Judge s Court, Ambala together with an application under Sec. 14 of the Limitation Act. In the context of considering the applicability of Sec. 4 of the Limitation Act and the inter-action of Sec. 14 of the Limitation Act, the supreme Court held as follows :-"if the plaintiff had filed the suit in the trial court on March 2, 1959, then, certainly the suit w