( 1 ) THIS is an application in revision against an order of a Judge, Small Causes, dismissing the plaintiffs suit as being barred by limitation. The circumstances in which the suit was dismissed on the ground of limitation were these:

( 2 ) THE plaint in the suit was drawn up on the basis of a promissory note, originally, for the recovery of Rs. 1290/- with interest at 2 per cent, per mensem. The promissory note on the basis of which the suit had been filed was one for a sum of Rs. 750/- and had been executed on the 23rd January, 1951 (in the copy of the judgment the date given of the promissory note is inaccurate ). Since originally, the intention of the plaintiff was to file a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1290/ -. e. , for the entire principal and the entire interest which had accrued on the promissory note, the plaint was drawn up for being filed in the court of the Munsif which was the proper court in accordance with the valuation given in the plaint to entertain the suit.

( 3 ) IT appears that subsequent to the drawing up of the plaint and before its filing in court the plaintiff changed his mind and he reduced his claim from Rs. 1290/- to Rs. 750/- that is to say, the plaintiff decided to give up the entire interest and to make a claim for the principal only because he thought that he was unlikely to be able to recover the entire sum made up to principal and interest from the defendant. Though the valuation of the suit was altered yet no appropriate or consequential change was made in the "heading" of the plaint with the result that the plaint which as originally drawn up bore the heading "in the court of the Munsif, Moradabad". This error, apparently was born out of the inadvertence of some one other than the plaintiff, for it is nobodys case that the plaintiff himself drew up the plaint or made the subsequent corrections in the plaint in respect of the valuation of the suit.

( 4 ) THE plaint was filed in the court of the Munsif on the 23rd January, 1954,. e. , on the last day of limitation for the recovery of Rs. 750/- from the defendant.

( 5 ) THE endorsement on the back of the plaint indicates that the plaint was presented to the munsarim of the Munsif by Sri Lakshmi Narain Vakil of the plaintiff on the 23rd January, 1954. On the 25th January, 1954, the Munsarim made a report on the plaint saying that the plaint was deficient in court-fees to the extent of Rs. 98/12/-and that the suit was not cognizable by the court of the Munsif. On the 25th January the learned Munsif, before whom the report of the munsarim was put up, made an order calling upon the plaintiff to make good the deficiency in the court-fees, and, further, that the plaint was to be returned for presentation to the proper court after the deficiency in the court fees had been made good. The 26th of January was a holiday; so that the plaintiff made good the deficiency in the court-fees on the 27th January, 1954. On the 28th January the learned Munsif made the order for the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court. The plaint was taken back by the plaintiff on the 29th January, 1954, and presented to the court of Small Causes, on the same date.

( 6 ) THE Judge Small Causes came to the conclusion that the suit was barred by time, inasmuch as, the plaintiff was not entitled to deduct the period that had been spent in prosecuting the suit in the Court of the Munsif. The learned Judge, Small Causes, was of the view that the plaintiff lacked due care and attention in the matter of filing his plaint in the court of the Munsif.

( 7 ) THE relevant portion of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, under which provision the plaintiff in this case, claimed benefit, is in the following words:-

"in computing the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a Court of first instance or in a Court of appeal, against the defendant, sha