1. It appears to us that the real question has not been decided by the District Judge, namely, whether the delay in actually returning the plaint was due to the negligence of the plaintiff or to the act of the Court. If the District Munsif retained the plaint, notwithstanding the application made by the plaintiffs or their pleader, we are of opinion that he ought not to have dated his order on the 8th of May, but on the day on which he was really prepared to deliver out the plaint. Until this date, we think the proceedings would not be ended within the meaning of Section 14 of the Limitation Act; for, according to Section 57 of the Civil Procedure Code, the plaintiffs are clearly entitled to have their plaint returned to them with the final order upon it.

2. It is stated in the affidavit that the plaintiffs, by their pleader and in person applied on the 8th May for the return of the plaint and that it was refused. There ought to have been an affidavit by the pleader himself on this point. An opportunity must be given to the pleader to make this affidavit.

3. The question which the District Judge must decide is whether it was due to the default of the plaintiffs or to the act of the Court that the plaint was, not returned till the 19th May.

4. The finding is to be returned within one month from the date of receipt of this order, and seven days will be allowed for filing objections after the finding has been posted up in this Court.