K. C. DAS GUPTA, J.

( 1 ) THESE two Rules arise out of a suit brought by a person for recovery of arrears of salary for his service as the driver of a motor car. The plaintiff's claim was at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month. The defendant pleaded that the salary was at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month, that nothing was due and that the claim was barred by limitation. The learned Munsif rejected the plea of payment and decreed the suit at the rate of RSection 60/ -. He d (sic) not, it appears, consider the plea of limitation.

( 2 ) THE only question raised in the Rule tained by the plaintiff (Civil Revn. No. 3327 1953) is that the Munsif was wrong in concluc (sic) that the salary was at the rate of Rs. 60/-month and not at the rate of Rs. 75/- per mo (sic) That however is a question of fact and even the Munsif has come to a wrong conclusion of acts, that would not justify our interfering with this order under Section 115, Civil F. C. This Rule must therefore be discharged.

( 3 ) THE Rule obtained by the defendant (Civil Revn. No. 2277 of 1953) raises an important question of limitation. There are at present two Articles in the First Schedule to- the Limitation Act dealing with suits

Click Here to Read the rest of this document