( 1 ) THE plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,300 as damages sustained by him on account of the rash and negligent driving of the motor bus belonging to the first defendant by his driver as a result of which the bus fell into a canal and the plaintiff received very serious and grievous injuries. It is found by the Court below in paragraph 8 of the judgment that the accident was true and that the plaintiff received the injuries as a result of the rash and negligent driving by the first defendant s driver. The suit was, however, dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge on the ground that it was barred by time.

( 2 ) TWO questions arise for decision in the appeal: (i) whether the suit as against the and defendant, the Insurance Company, is barred by limitation; (2) whether the suit is maintainable directly as against the Insurance Company. It is the case of both parties that the accident took place on 26th March, 1947 and that the suit was instituted on 27th March, 1950, 26th March being a public holiday. It is clear that, under Article 22 of the Limitation Act, the suit as against the first defendant (the owner of the bus) is barred by limitation.

( 3

Click Here to Read the rest of this document