The main legal point established in the judgment is that the period spent in prosecuting a case in the wrong court should be excluded under S.14 of the Limitation Act if there was a bonafide mistake and good faith. The court emphasized the need for a liberal construction of S.14 and relied on previous judicial interpretations to support its decision.

1. This is a revision by the plaintiff. His suit - on a promissory note stands dismissed solely on the ground of limitation. So naturally this revision concerns the correctness of the finding on the question of limitation. I feel that this court has power under S.115 C. P. C. to examine the correctness of the decision.

2. These are the relevant facts. The promissory note on which the suit has been laid is dated 31-10-1974. The consideration for the promissory note is Rs. 2,500/ The suit was filed as O. S.768/75 on 29-9-1975, before the Munsiff Court. Ernakulam.

3. The defendant raised a question of territorial jurisdiction. He contended that the territorial jurisdiction for the suit is not Ernakulam, but Cochin. The Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, held on 2-12-1977 that it has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Munsiff made an endorsement on the plaint thus:

"The plaint is ordered to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the Munsiffs Court, Cochin. The parties will appear before that court on 16-1-78. Time for re-presentation one week from the date of return give notice to the parties."

4. The plaint was returned on 9-12-1977. It was re-presented before the Munsiff Court, Cochin on 14-12-1977. There the suit was cumbered as O. S.765/77. The following issues were raised in the suit.

1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation

2. Whether the promissory note sued upon was got executed by misrepresentation, undue influence, fraud and coercion?,

3. Whether the suit promissory note is supported by consideration."

5. The trial court found issues 2 and 3 in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No.1 was found against the plaintiff. So the suit was dismissed. The appellate court revalued the findings of the Munsiff. It confirmed all the findings of the Munsiff including the finding on the question of limitation. It dismissed the appeal. Hence the plaintiff files this revision.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the revision petitioner is entitled to exclusion of time under S.14 of the Limitation Act and if the time spent by the plaintiff in prosecuting the ease in the wrong court is excluded, the suit is well within time.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent in defence submits that since the plaintiff did not file the suit or re-presented the suit on the very same day, the Ernakulam Munsiff Court found that it has no jurisdiction, the exclusion of time provided under S.14 of the Limitation Act will be of no help to the revision petitioner. He elaborates his argument. He points out that though the Ernakulam Munsiff Court found that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit on 2-12-1977 and the plaint was returned on 9-12-1977, it was not re-presented on 9-12-1977 itself, hence the counsel submits that the plaintiff cannot have resort to the provision contained in S.14 of the Limitation Act. Further he submitted that there is no evidence in this case by way of an affidavit or otherwise that the plaintiff was prosecuting the suit in good faith, in a wrong court, which, according to the counsel for the respondent, is a must for invoking the aid of S.14 of the Limitation Act. He also submits that how the suit has been saved from limitation ought to have been stated in the plaint itself.

8. S.14 of the Limitation Act reads thus:

"Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction.-(1) In computing the period of limitation, for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, where in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.

(2) In computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligenc