AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.M. Ismail, J.—This is an appeal, preferred by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 65 of 1972 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge,
Nagapattinam, dismissing the suit solely on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. The suit was filed by the appellant against the
respondent or recovery of a sum of Rs. 24,140 with interest. The suit was originally instituted before the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli,
on 3rd October, 1970. There is no dispute that the suit so instituted was within time. The respondent herein took up the plea that the Sub-Court,
Tiruchirapalli, had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and that the competent Court to entertain and dispose of the suit was the Sub-Court,
Nagapattinam. This question whether the Sub-Court, Tiruchirapalli, had jurisdiction or not, was tried as a preliminary issue, and the learned District
Judge-Trainee functioning as the Fourth Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, by an order dated 23rd September, 1971, held that the Sub-
Court, Tiruchirapalli, had no jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the suit, and the competent Court to entertain and dispose of the suit was the
Sub-Court, Nagapattinam, and ordered the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. The learned Judge has actually made the
endorsement on the plaint only on 13th October, 1971, noting that the plaint was actually returned on 13th October 1971. On the very next day,
viz., 14th October 1971, the plaint was presented before the Sub-Court at Nagapattinam. Before the Sub-Court, Nagapattinam, the respondent
herein took up the plea that the suit was barred by limitation and that plea was the subject-matter of the 11th issue for trial. In fact, it would appear
that the respondent requested the Court to try this issue as a preliminary issue. The learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, having tried the
issue as a preliminary issue, by judgment and decree, dated 30th April, 1973 accepted the plea of the respondent that the suit was barred by
limitation and dismissed the suit. It is against this dismissal of the suit, the present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in the suit.
As we have pointed out already, the suit has been dismissed only on the ground of limitation, and, therefore, we have to consider this appeal
only on the question whether the suit was barred by limitation or not. For the purpose of considering this point, we have to find out what was the
case put forward by the respondent before the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, as regards his plea that the suit was barred by limitation.
As we have pointed out already, there is no dispute that the suit as originally instituted in the Sub-Court, Tiruchirapalli, was not barred by limitation,
and, therefore, the plea of limitation put forward by the respondent herein must have reference to something that happened subsequently. In other
words, the plea of the respondent was that the plaint having been ordered to be returned by the learned District Judge-Trainee functioning as the
Fourth Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli by order dated 23rd September, 1971, the appellant herein should have taken return of the
plaint immediately and presented the same before the Sub-Court, Nagapattinam, and ought not to have waited for 20 days and taken return of the
plaint on 13th October, 1971 and presented the same before the Sub-Court, Nagapattinam on 14th October, 1971. It is this interval of 20 days
between the order directing the return of the plaint made by the learned District Judge-Trainee (Fourth Additional Subordinate Judge),
Tiruchirapalli, and the actual taking return of the plaint on 13th October 1971, that was alleged to have constituted the delay in the presentation of
the plaint to the proper Court, and, therefore, affected the period of limitation. Paragraph 11 of the order of the learned District Judge-Trainee
(Fourth Additional Subordinate Judge), Tiruchirapalli, states as follows:
In the result, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. The plaint is ordered to be returned for presentation to the proper Court having
jurisdiction.
We emphasise the words ""The plaint is ordered to be returned"" contained in the order of the learned District Judge-Trainee (Fourth Additional
Subordinate Judge), Tiruchirapalli, dated 23rd September, 1971. The plaint itself contains the following endorsement signed by the learned District
Judge-Trainee (Fourth Additional Subordinate Judge), Tiruchirapalli, on 13th October, 1971:
In the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli - Original Suit No. 477/1970
Name of the Plaintiff : M/s. Moneys Trans ports, Tiruchy by its partner Mrs. Prabavathi Kunjithapatham.
Name of the defendant : The Tanjore Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, Vijayapuram, Tiruvarur.
Date of presentation of the plaint : 3-10-70
Date of order of return : 23-9-71 Date of actual return : 1-10-71
Reasons for return : Vide judgment attached.
Sd/- P. Bhaskaran,
District judge-Trainee
(IV Addl. Sub-Judge)
13-10-71.
The endorsement shows that the date of the actual return was originally typed as ''4th October, 1971'', but the same was scored out and altered to
''13th October, 1971'', in the hand of the learned District Judge-Trainee (Fourth Additional Subordinate Judge) Tiruchirapalli, who signed the
endorsement on 13th October, 1971. On the very next day. the plaint was presented to the Sub-Court, Nagapattinam. There is no controversy
about all these facts. By accepting the plea of the respondent that the appellant should have taken return of the plaint immediately and presented
the same to the Sub-Court, Nagapattinam on the very next day after the order of the learned District Judge-Trainee (Fourth Additional
Subordinate Judge), Tiruchirapalli, i.e., 24th September, 1971, the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam committed a grievous error in
ignoring the statutory requirements of Order 7, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, as well as the actual endorsement made by the learned District
Judge-Trainee (Fourth Additional Subordinate Judge), Tiruchirapalli, and the purport of the order of the learned District Judge-Trainee (Fourth
Additional Subordinate Judge), Tiruchirapalli, dated 23rd September, 1971. By order dated 23rd September, I97I, the learned District Judge-
Trainee (Fourth Additional Subordinate Judge) ordered the return of the plaint, and that does not mean the plaint was returned that day itself. The
order of the learned Judge will have to be fair-copied and signed and, thereafter the officer will have to obtain the signature of the learned Judge on
the endorsement before the plaint can be returned to the party actually. The endorsement which we have extracted would show that the office
originally intended to obtain the signature of the learned Judge on 4th October, 1971, and that is why the date of the actual return was typed as 4th
October, 1971, but for some reason or other, the endorsement was placed for the signature of the learned Judge only on 13th October, 1971, and
the learned Judge while signing the endorsement on 13th October, 1971, very rightly scored out the typed date ''4th October, 1971'', and put the
date as ''13th October, 1971''. By no stretch of imagination the appellant can be held responsible for the District Judge-Trainee (Fourth Additional
Subordinate Judge), Tiruchirapalli, signing the endorsement on 13th October, 1971. He had no means and no power to compel or force the
learned Judge to sign the endorsement either on 23rd September, 1971 itself or immediately thereafter. Therefore, the appellant herein cannot be
blamed for something which the office of the Court and the Presiding Officer of the Court had to do.
As we have pointed out already, there is a difference between the Court, by a judicial pronouncement, ordering the return of the plaint for
presentation to the proper Court and the office of the Court administratively actually returning the plaint to the party. The learned Subordinate
Judge, Nagapattinam, in the present case has betrayed a total and complete ignorance of this difference when he accepted the plea of the
respondent that the appellant herein should have taken delivery of die plaint then and there, i.e., on 23rd September, 1971, or immediately
thereafter arid presented the same to the proper Court Immediately. It is not clear what exactly the earned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam,
meant when he observed that the appellant should have taken return of the plaint on 23rd September, 1971 itself - whether the appellant should
have snatched the plaint from the hands of the Judge or from the hands of the Officers who had the custody of the plaint without the proper
procedure laid down in this behalf being followed. It is ad nauseam the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, in his judgment goes on
repeating that the plaintiff should have taken return of the plaint immediately on 23rd September, 1971 itself and resented the plaint to the proper
Court, viz., Sub-Court, Nagapattinam and had not been diligent.
We may also draw attention to the statutory requirements in this behalf. Rule 10 of Order 7, Code of Civil Procedure, deals with the return of
plaint. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 says:
Subject to the provisions of Rule 10A, the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have
been instituted.
Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 states:
On returning a plaint the Judge shall endorse thereon the date of its presentation and return, the name of the party presenting it, and a brief
statement of the reasons for returning it.
This is a mandatory statutory requirement for the purpose of showing when the plaint was presented in the original Court, when it was ordered to
be returned, when it was actually returned, and what was the ground on which it was directed to be returned. These requirements in the form of an
endorsement on the plaint signed by the Judge himself are absolutely necessary for the purpose of avoiding any controversy before the Court to
which the plaint was presented subsequently on these particulars. Without this endorsement having been made on the plaint, the plaint cannot be
returned to a party, and the plaint cannot be presented to the proper Court. The learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, in the present case,
has completely lost sight of this requirement of the law when he went on repeating ad nausoam that the appellant should have taken return of the
plaint on 23rd September, 1971. The learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam proceeded as if the plaint was actually available for being taken
return of on 23rd September, 1971, and because of the default or laches on the part of the appellant, it was not taken return of on that day, and it
was taken return of only on 13th October, 1971. On the other hand, as we have shown above, the plaint was available for being taken return of
only on 13th October, 1971 when the learned Judge made the endorsement as required by Rule 10(2) of Order 7, Code of Civil Procedure, and
by no stretch of imagination the appellant could have taken return of the plaint prior to 13th October, 1971.
In view of this conclusion of ours, we have no alternative but to set aside the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge Nagapattinam, and
direct him to dipsose of the suit on merits. It is unfortunate that the suit instituted on 3rd October, 1970 yet, remains undisposed of and has to be
tried hereafter. If the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam had simply followed the ordinary rule laid down in this behalf by this Court as well
as the higher Court and the rules of prudence that in appealable cases he should give a finding on all the points in controversy, so that in the event
of the appellate Court not agreeing with trial Judge on his conclusion of the preliminary point, time can be saved by the appellate Court, without
remanding the suit for fresh disposal, by considering the findings of the trial Judge on the other issues in the suit. In this connection, we may draw
attention to an observation made by this Court in Sayyed Shah Abdul Latif Mohideen Khadiri Sujjatha Shibathullahi Sahib Vs. Mohammad Labbai
and Others, In that case, this Court pointed out:
It has often been observed by this Court and by the Judicial Committee that in appealable cases, subordinate Courts should as far as possible,
receive the evidence adduced and decide all the issues in order to avoid a piecemeal trial and a protracted litigation in the shape of an appeal and
remand in ease the decision of the Subordinate Court in preliminary issues is not upheld by the appellate Court.
This salutary requirement has been completely ignored by the learned Subordinate Judge, necessitating a protracted litigation which is pending for a
very long time.
In addition to all these infirmities, the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, is very unsatisfactory in form also. As we
pointed out already the point raised before him and considered by him was a simple one, viz., when the suit was in time when filed before the Sub-
Court, Tiruchirapalli, whether it became barred by limitation in view of the contention put forward by the respondent that the plaintiff should have
taken return of the plaint on 23rd September, 1971, but has taken return of it only on 13th October, 1971, and presented it to the Sub-Court,
Nagapattinam on 14th October, 1971, and the interval between 23rd September, 1971 and 13th October, 1971 affected the suit being in time.
While deciding this question and simply accepting the contention of the respondent, the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, has written
more than two pages of printed judgment, repeating ad nauseam the same simple contention as well as his view.
In these circumstances, the appeal is allowed, this judgment and decree are set aside and the suit is remanded to the learned Subordinate Judge,
Nagapattinam, for disposal on merits. The appellant will be entitled to the costs of this appeal. Court-fee paid on the memorandum of appeal will
be refunded to the appellant. In view of the fact that the suit is a very old one, the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, is directed to dispose
of the suit as expeditiously as possible.