The actual return of the plaint, as per the endorsement made by the judge under O.7, R.10, C.P.C., determines the commencement of the limitation period, not the court's order to return the plaint.

ISMAIL, J. :- This is an appeal preferred by the plaintiff in OS No. 65 of 1972 on the file of the Court of the Sub-ordinate ordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, dismissing the suit solely on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. The suit was filed by the appellant against the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 24,140/-, with interest. The suit was originally instituted before the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, on 3-10-1970. There is no dispute that the suit so instituted was within time. The respondent herein took up the plea that the Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli, had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and that the competent court to entertain and dispose of the suit was the Sub Court, Nagapattinam. This question whether the Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli, had jurisdiction or not, was tried as a preliminary issue, and the learned District Judge-Trainee functioning as the Fourth Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, by an order dated 23rd Sep., 1971, held that the Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli, had no jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the suit, and the competent court to entertain and dispose of the suit was the Sub Court, Nagapattinam, and ordered the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court. The learned Judge has actually made the endorsement on the plaint only on 13th Oct., 1971, noting that the plaint was actually returned on 13th Oct., 1971. On the very next day, viz., 14th Oct., 1971, the plaint was presented before the Sub Court at Nagapattinam, Before the Sub Court of Nagapattinam the respondent herein took up the plea that the suit was barred by limitation and that plea was the subject-matter of the 11th issue for trial. In fact, it would appear that the respondent requested the Court to try this issue as a preliminary issue. The learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, having tried the issue as a preliminary issue, by judgement and decree dated 30th April, 1973, accepted the plea of the respondent that the suit was barred by limitation and dismissed the suit. It is against this dismissal of the suit, the present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in the suit.

2. As we have pointed out already, the suit has been dismissed only on the ground of limitation, and, therefore, we have to consider this appeal only on the question whether the suit was barred by limitation or not. For the purpose of considering this point, we have to find out what was the case put forward by the respondent before the learned Sub ordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, as regards his plea that the suit was barred by limitation. As we have pointed out already, there is no dispute that the suit as originally instituted in the Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli, was not barred by limitation, and, therefore, the plea of limitation put forward by the respondent herein must have reference to something that happened subsequently. In other words, the plea of the respondent was that the plaint having been ordered to be returned by the learned District Judge-Trainee functions as the Fourth Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli by order dated 23rd Sep., 1971, the appellant herein should have taken return of the plaint immediately and presented the same before the Sub Court, Nagapattinam, and ought not to have waited for 20 days and taken return of the plaint on 13th Oct., 1971 and presented the same before the Sub Court, Nagapattinam on 14th Oct., 1971. It is this interval of 20 days between the order directing the return of the plaint made by the learned District Judge Trainee (Fourth Additional Subordinate Judge), Tiruchirapalli, and the actual taking return of the plaint on 13th Oct., 1971, that was alleged to have constituted the delay in the presentation of the plaint to the proper court, and, therefore, affected the period of limitation. Para. 11 of the order of the learned District Judge Trainee (Fourth Additional Subordinate Judge) Tiruchirapalli, states as follows :-

"In the result, this court has no