( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order of the District Munsif, Gudur dated 2-1-1962 refusing to receive a plaint presented at his residence at about 8-30 p. m. , that is, after court hours. The suit was sought to be filed on the foot of a promissory note dated 1-1-1959 on the last day of limitation, that is, 2-1-1962. When it was presented to the District Munsif at his residence after the court hours at 8-30 p. m. , he refused to receive it. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Court had jurisdiction either to accept or reject it, but once the Court accepted it, it could not return the plaint with an endorsement refusing to accept it. In this connection, the learned counsel drew my attention to the case of Thakur Dinram v. Hari Das, ILR 34 All 482; Sattayya Padayachi v. Sundarathachi 46 Mad LJ 78 : (AIR 1924 Mad 448) (FB) and Tula Ram v. Bhajan Singh, AIR 1953 All 609.

( 2 ) BEFORE discussing the authorities cited, I would like to refer to O. IV, R I C. P. C. It provides ; " (1) Every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint to the court of such Officer as it appoints in this behalf. (2) Every plaint shall comply with the rules cont

Click Here to Read the rest of this document