AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramaswami, J.—These are two civil revision petitions filed against the orders of the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam in S. C. Nos. 123 and
122 of 1950.
The facts are briefly these: The petitioner before us is the creditor and the respondents before us are the debtors on promissory notes. This
petitioner seems to have been charging only a low rate of interest at 5 per cent, which is rather an unusual feature in the litigation coming before this
Court from this locality. In addition there seems to have been a renewal of the promissory notes by a woman and possibly there were other
circumstances which stood in the way of completely realising the amount of principal and interest. In addition it is well known, and, of which
judicial notice can be taken of, that if a suit is filed in the Munsiff''s Court it takes a pretty long time. But, on the other hand, if it is filed on the small
cause side of the Sub-Court there is speedy disposal and several other advantages which need not be catalogued.
In fact all these circumstances seem to have weighed on the mind of the petitioner before us, and, therefore he refrained from filing a suit in the
District Munsif''s Court and awaited the reopening of the Small Cause Court in which he intended to file his suits after relinquishing a portion of his
claim in order to faring the suits within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court Judge. This unfortunately resulted in the fact that whereas the suit
which ought to have been filed on the 15th was filed on the 19th after the Small Cause Court reopened after the summer recess.
Objection was taken by the respondents before me that the suits were barred by limitation on the date on which they were filed on the footing of
the reasoning that the interest etc., were given up in order to bring the suits within the Court of the Small Cause Judge only after the period of
limitation expired, viz. the 15th. In other words, the respondents want to make out that the petitioner made up his mind only between the 15th and
the 19th as to where he should file the suits. The learned Subordinate Judge persuaded himself that these suite were barred by limitation and
dismissed them, and, hence these civil revision petitions.
I am of opinion that these suits are not barred by limitation. On the other hand, it is perfectly open to the petitioner to have awaited the
reopening of the Small Cause Court in order to file his suits. There can be no possible dispute that this petitioner was entitled to file on. the small
cause side once he was prepared to relinquish a portion of the claim which would bring it within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court. In fact
he is entitled to do so under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.
The only point which is urged is that these suits have been filed on the 19th giving up interest only after the promissory notes have become time
barred on the 15th when suits could have been filed in the District Munsif''s Court as original suits. This argument overlooks the fact that it was
open to the petitioner from the very beginning to give up his claim and make up his mind long before the 15th that he would file only in the Small
Cause Court for various advantages, and, this he has done. On this conclusion it follows that we cannot say that the suits were barred by limitation
on the date on which they were filed in the Small Cause Court as the petitioner was fully entitled to take advantage of the summer vacation and
exclude it from the period of limitation.
Therefore, these petitions are allowed and the order of the learned Subordinate Judge is set aside and the suits are remanded for disposal
according to law on the issues other than this which I have now decided, viz, about the point of limitation. There will be no order as to costs.