A mistake in valuation of a suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction, due to the negligence of an advocate, may be protected under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, if the mistake is not so gross as to disentitle the plaintiff to the protection of the statute.

Judgement

MOHAPATRA, J :- This first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed only on the point of limitation by the learned Subordinate-Judge of Berhampur in his judgment dated 31-10-1949. The cause of action for the suit of the plaintiff is an order dated 2-10-1943 passed under the provisions of S. 145, Criminal P.C. The plaintiff is a purchaser of the disputed property described in the schedule of the plaint in a sale held, in execution of a decree obtained in a suit before the District Munsif of Berhampur, the judgment-debtor being one Saketi Boddu.

The date of plaintiffs purchase is 21-1-1936. The plaintiff also took delivery of possession through Court on 12-5-1936. The disputed lands being Government zeroyati lands, the plaintiff claims to have paid revenue or cist to the Government ever since the date of his purchase and that he was in possession of the disputed property.

According to the version of the plaintiff, his tenants raised crops in the year 1941; but defendant 2 who is the husband of defendant 1 cut and removed away the crops on 21-6-1941 from a portion of the lands with the help of some other persons. Thereafter proceedings under S. 145, Cr. P.C. were started at the instance of the plaintiff, but nevertheless it culminated against him. So the present suit.

2. The suit was, in the first instance, filed, before the Munsif at Berhampur on 28-9-1946 shortly before the expiry of the three years period of limitation from the date of the order under S. 145, Criminal P.C. (Ex. 9). The suit being one for recovery of possession and the disputed lands being Government zeroyati lands, the plaintiffs Advocate Sri G. Raghab Rao of Berhampur valued the suit on the basis of ten times of the cist paid which came upto Rs. 139/6.

The plaintiff further claimed a sum of Rs. 860/10 as mesne profits for three years preceding the date of the suit. The total valuation for the purpose of court-fee was Rs. 1000/-. The learned advocate who appeared for the plaintiff in the trial Court filed the suit before the Munsif as in his opinion the value for the purpose of Court fee was the same as the value for the purpose of jurisdiction in this case.

3. Defendant 1 is the daughter of Saketi Boddu and claims title on the basis of a deed of settlement of 1941. Defendant 2 is her husband. They denied the title of the plaintiff and assailed the execution sale as invalid and further asserted that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit property. But nevertheless they took up the plea in the Munsifs Court that the suit had been grossly undervalued both for the purposes of jurisdiction and court-fee.

4. The learned Munsif tried the preliminary issue and came to the conclusion that the suit had been grossly undervalued for both purposes, that is, for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction, and returned the plaint on 9-7-1848 to be filed in the proper Court.

5. The plaint was refiled in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Berhampur on 10-7-1948 the counsel having properly valued the suit for the purpose of court-fee and for the purpose of jurisdiction.

6. In the Subordinate Judges Court the main point of defence was one of limitation. As I have mentioned above, the order under S. 145, Criminal P.C., is dated 2-10-1943, the suit before the Munsif was indeed filed in time on 28-9-1946; but then the Munsif had no jurisdiction as the suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. The suit therefore had to be filed again after return of the plaint on 10-7-1948. The case undoubtedly is governed by Art. 47, Limitation Act as the order under S. 145, criminal P.C., was against the present plaintiff, that is to say, he has got to file the suit within three years from the date of the order.

The suit can be said to be within time only if the plaintiff is entitled to the protection under the provisions of S. 14, Limitation Act, that is to say, if he is entitled to the exclusion of the period for which the suit was before