The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, specifically S.14(1) and Explanation I, in determining the jurisdiction of the court to give time for re-presentation of the plaint and the consequences of the suit being barred by limitation.

1. In this revision petition Mr. T.P. Mathai, learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioner, challenges the decree of the learned Additional Munsiff, Alleppey, dismissing his suit S.C.S. No. 320 of 1961 as having been instituted out of time. The learned Munsiff, in the view that she took that the suit was barred by limitation, did not go into the various other points in controversy between the parties.

2. It will be seen that the plaintiff originally instituted the suit in the Shertalai Munsiff 's Court on 26-6-1961; and it is accepted that that was the last day on which the suit, on the basis of the transaction relied upon by the plaintiff, should have been instituted in any court so that it could be considered to have been filed within the period of limitation. Whether objection was taken or not, it is ultimately seen that an order was passed by the learned Principal Munsiff of Shertalai on 21st November 1961, directing the return of the plaint for presentation before the proper court. So far as the direction is concerned, there can be no controversy that it is well within the jurisdiction of the court, once it finds that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in question. Then there is a further direction to the effect: "time for re-presentation, one month."

3. On the basis of the said order of the Principal Munsiff of Shertalai, there is again no controversy, that the plaintiff presented the plaint in question before the learned Additional Munsiff of Alleppey, only on 20th December 1961. No doubt, if the learned Munsiff of Shertalai, who passed the order on 21st November 1961 giving the plaintiff time for representation, namely one month, had jurisdiction to give that time, and by that order the plaintiff in law would have an extended period of limitation, then it can certainly be held that the presentation of the plaint before the Alleppey Court must be considered to have been within time. But objection was taken by the defendant that notwithstanding the direction given in the order of the learned Munsiff of Shertalai, giving one month's time for re-presentation of the plaint, that order is absolutely one without jurisdiction and that the said court had no power to enlarge the period of limitation. On the other hand, objection appears to have been taken that the plaintiff, in order to save his plaint from the bar of limitation, should be able to satisfy the court that he has come within the time provided for in S.14(1) read with Explanation I of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908.

4. The learned Munsiff, in the judgment which is under attack in this revision petition, is of the view that the learned Munsiff of Shertalai had no jurisdiction to give one month's time, as he has purported to do, in his order dated 21st November 1961, and therefore, inasmuch as the suit itself has been filed in her court out of time, it will have to be dismissed as barred by limitation, even on the basis of the allegations contained in the plaint itself. Therefore, holding that the suit is barred by limitation, the learned Munsiff did not go into the other points arising for decision on merits. Ultimately the learned Munsiff has dismissed the suit, as barred by limitation.

5. Mr. Mathai, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit as having been barred by limitation by the learned Munsiff of Alleppey. According to the learned counsel, the Shertalai court has certainly got jurisdiction, having due regard to the provisions of S.14(1) read with Explanation I of the Indian Limitation Act, when once it is satisfied that the court where the suit has been instituted suffers from lack of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, and as such is unable to entertain it, to give a reasonable time to the plaintiff to represent the plaint in the proper court. The learned counsel further urged that his client has re-presented the plaint before the Alleppey court within the time allowed by the learned Mun