Dave, J.—This case comes on a reference made by learned Judges of a Division Bench of this Court in a first appeal filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Kishangarh, dated the 14th of August, 1951 decreeing the plaintiffs suit for Rs. 9,530/3/- with future interest at 6 per cent and costs.

2. The said reference is embodied in the following terms—

"Whether advantage can be taken under Sec. 15 of the Kishangarh State Limitation Act, corresponding to sec. 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, of the pendency of a suit in the courts of the erstof the erstwhile territory of the Ajmer-Merwara, in subsequent suit in Kishangarh court in view of the accession of Kishangarh State to the Dominion of India and thereafter its becoming a part of the Union of India, and specially the Rajasthan under the States merger while State of Ajmer with Rajasthan under the States Reorganization Act, 1956?"

3. In order to appreciate the full implication of the question raised before us, it would be proper to set out briefly the facts which have given rise to it.

4. The plaintiffs-respondents formed a partnership firm carrying on business at Madanganj in Kishangarh. The defendants-appellants constituted a Hindu joint family firm carrying on business at Vijainagar. The plaintiffs case was, that the defendants made several transactions relating to purchase and sale of silver and bales of cotton-yarn, at Kishangarh, through the commission agency of the plaintiffs, from Bhadwa Vad 12, Svt. 2000 to Kartik Sud 15 Svt. 2000. These transactions resulted in an outstanding balance in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants for an amount of Rs. 11,454/15/-. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for the said amount in the court of the Sub-Judge, Beawer on the 17th of May, 1944 since the defendants were residing within the jurisdiction of that court. The defendants contested the suit and one of their several pleas was, that the court at Beawar had no jurisdiction to entertain and try that suit, since there was a specific agreement between the parties that every dispute between them would be referred, to the courts at Kishangarh. This objection found favour with the learned Sub-Judge, Beawar and he ordered the plaint to be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper court. Against this order dated the 14th of January, 1947, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in the court of the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer. The appellate court confirmed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the appeal on the 24th of January, 1949. Thereafter, on the 16th of June, 1949, the plaintiffs filed another suit, for the same amount, in the court of the learned District Judge, Kishangarh. The defendants again contested the claim and this time, one of their objections was, that the suit had become time barred and the plaintiffs could not take advantage of the provisions of sec. 15 of the Kishangarh State Limitation Act (corresponding to sec. 14 of the Indian Limitation Act) as claimed by them. The trial court dismissed this objection holding that the plaintiffs, were entitled to exclude the period of time during which they were prosecuting the earlier suit in the court of first instance and also in the court of appeal in the former State of Ajmer. The trial court decreed the suit for Rs. 9,500/3/-on 14th of August, 1951. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the defendants filed an appeal in this Court. That appeal came before a Division Bench of this Court on 26th of March, 1958 and at that time it was urged by learned counsel for appellants that the trial court had committed an error in giving benefit of sec. 14 of the Indian Limitation Act since the courts at Beawar and at Ajmer were "foreign courts" and sec. 14 was not applicable to civil proceedings in foreign courts. Learned counsel for respondents urged in reply that by the time the present suit was filed, the former Kishangarh State had acceded to the Dominion of India and thereafter it b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document