JUDGMENT

Srivastava, J - This is an application under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act, for revision against the decree, dated 12th May 1932, of the Second Additional Judge, Small Cau3e Court, Lucknow.

2. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant had engaged him on a monthly salary of Rs. 10 for the purpose of collecting rents of her houses and kothi and that later on tha defendant requested the plaintiff to accompany her to Mecca and promised to pay him at the rate of Rs. 30 per month with other necessary expenses for the period that he worked with her during the journey to and from Mecca. On these allegations the plaintiff claimed Rs. 219-8-0 on account of his salary and expenses after giving- the defendant credit for Rs. 35 alleged to have been received by him. The defendant denied the claim in toto. She also pleaded limitation. The learned Additional Judge held the agreement for payment of salary at the rate of Rs. 10 and Rs. 30 per month to be proved. He also rejected the plea of limitation. As regards the claim for expenses he held that it was not well founded. In the result he gave the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 175-1-0 with proportionate costs.

3. The learned Counsel for the applicant has, in the first place, challenged the correctness of the lower Court's finding that the plaintiff was in the service of the defendant on a monthly salary of Rs. 10 and Rs. 30 per month. His argument is that the finding is perverse, inasmuch as the witnesses examined by the plaintiff did not prove the alleged contract of service or the agreement for payment of salary at the rates claimed, and the evidence of the plaintiff himself was quite unreliable. Apart from the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 3, the plaintiff himself gave direct evidence of the alleged contract. The lower Court has believed his evidence. I know of no rule of law that the evidence of a person must be rejected as unworthy of credit by reason of his being a party to the suit. In this case, having read the statements of P. Ws. 1 and 3, I am satisfied that the statement of the plaintiff himself was materially corroborated by their evidence. The question being one of pure fact and being supported by admissible evidence, it is not open to question in revision. I therefore overrule the contention.

4. Next, as regards limitation, reliance was placed on Article 7, Lim. Act. This rule relates to the wages of household servants, artisans or labourers. The words "household servant" as used in this article must, in my opinion be read ejusdem generis with the words "artisan or labourer" which follow it. The term "household servant" has been substituted in the Limitation Acts of 1877 and 1908 for the words domestic servant" which occurred in the Limitation Act of 1871. In my opinion the term "household servant," as used in this article, cannot apply to a person in the position of the plaintiff who was employed for the purpose of collecting rents of houses and as a male companion in the defendant's journey abroad. I am therefore in agreement with the lower Court that Article 7 does not apply to the case. The result therefore is that the application fails and is dismissed with costs.