ORDER

Satish Chandra, J. - This is a Defendant's appeal. It arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 2000/- on the basis of an amount acknowledged between the parties. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on the finding that it was barred by time. On appeal, the appellate court came to the conclusion that the delay in instituting the suit was liable to be condoned u/s 14 of the Limitation Act. It confirmed the finding that the Plaintiff have proved their claim. It then held that not only the period during which the Plaintiffs had been prosecuting a case in another court but also the period between the return of the plaint and its presentation in the present court, was also liable to be excluded because the Plaintiffs has justifiably explained the lapse of time before instituting the plaint in the present court.

2. For the Appellant it has been urged that in law the time spent by the Plaintiffs after the return of the plaint and before its actual presentation in the proper court could not be deducted. In this case the accounts were settled between the parties on 6-4-1952. The Plaintiffs instituted the suit for recovery of the money on 5-4-1955 in the court of Munsif, Ghaziabad. T