( 1 ) THIS is plaintiffs' appeal from the decree in Civil Suit No. 7-B of 1050 of the court of the District Judge, Raigarh, dismissing their suit OR the point of limitation,

( 2 ) THE plaint was initially filed in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, Class I, bilaspur, on 25th November, 1947. The suit was instituted against Firm Balaram rameshwar of Kharsia, said to be owned by (1) Balaram and (2) Rameshwar who were joined as defendants. It was alleged that the defendants were residing and carrying on business at mouza Tundri in tonsil Janjgir, district Bilaspur, This was the solitary ground on which the Court was alleged to have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The claim was based on the dealings between the plaintiffs' firm Lalehand nathmal and the defendants' firm between 23-2-1944 and 10-12-1944, at the time the dealings began, the defendant-firm was carrying on business at tundri within the jurisdiction of the Court. Till 17-10-1944, it was styled as 'balaram Hameshwar', and subsequently, as 'rameshwar', in the plaintiffs' account-books. According to the defendants, in the month of Katik, Sambat 2000 (this should be 2001), corresponding to October 1944, there was a partition in the family when Balaram began dealings at mouza Tundri in the name of 'balaram rameshwardas' and 'bhagwandas Rameshwardas', and Rameshwar carried on business at Kharsia in the name of 'nanhooram Rameshwar'. Their case was that the dealings were entered into by Rameshwar alone who did not reside within the jurisdiction of the Court. It was accordingly alleged that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and there was no liability against Balaram for the dealings.

( 3 ) THE suit was tried on all points including that of jurisdiction. Judgment was delivered on 10-9-1949, holding that Balaram had no share in the dealing which were entered into by Rameshwar alone. The suit was thus dismissed as against balaram. So far as Rameshwar was concerned, it was held that his residence within the jurisdiction of the Court was not proved and accordingly the suit was not maintainable in the Court of Bilaspur. In this view, the plaint was directed to be returned for presentation to the proper Court.

( 4 ) IT appears from the order-sheets of the suit that on 10-9-1949, when the judgment was delivered, the Court passed an order that the plaint would be returned only after a certified copy thereof was filed. The case was accordingly directed to be put up on 2-5-9-1949. As the copy was not obtained till then, further time was granted till 10-10-1949. The time was again extended upto 1411-1949 as the Judge was on leave and the copy of the plaint was not ready till then for delivery. The copy was filed on this date. The Court thereupon directed the original plaint to be returned to the plaintiffs' counsel. However, immediately after it passed an order withholding the plaint as the question of court-fees on the claim against Balaram had to be considered. This point was decided on 15-111949 when the plaintiffs were directed to pay an additional court-tee of Rs. 460/before the plaint could be returned. Time for payment was given till 2-12-1949, and although on that date the plaintiffs were granted further time till 9-1-1950, the amount was later on paid on the same date. Afterwards, the plaint was returned on 12-12-1949 and was presented in the Court of the Civil Judge, Class I, raigarh, on 24-12-1949. Later the suit was taken up by the District Judge, raigarh, and "disposed of by him.

( 5 ) THE question at issue is whether the time between 25-11-1047 and 12-12-1949 should be excluded under Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. On this question, the lower Court has held in respect of the period between 10-9-1949 and 12-12-1949 that the plaintiffs are entitled to its exclusion. This finding is contested by the defendant in his cross-objection. The lower Court, however, held that the time taken up in the Court between 25-11-1947 and 10-9-1949 could n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document