Siddineni Srinivasa Rao vs Allu Veeramma

Satyanarayana Raju, J.—This is a petition to revise the order of the District Munsif of Narasapur dismissing a small cause suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation.

In order to appreciate the point involved in the revision petition it is necessary to state the material facts. On 9-5-1951, the defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 400/-. The period of three years for filing a suit on the foot of the promissory note expired on 9-5-1954. But as the Munsif''s Court was In vacation on that day the plaint was presented on 11-6-1954 on which date that Court re-opened.

The claim in the suit was for recovery of sum of Rs. 467-15-6 which represents the amour of principal and interest due on the promisor note. The District Munsif returned the plain for presentation to the proper Court on tr(sic) ground that there was no Notification of the High Court under S. 28 of the Madras Civil Courts Act II of 1873 as amended by the Matter''s Civil and Village Courts (Amendment) Act of 1951. Pursuant to the order made by the District Munsif the plaint was actually returned of 23-8-1954.

A Notification was issued by the High Court on 20-8-1954 which appears to have been receive by the Munsif''s Court on 27-8-1954. On the San date as the plaint was returned, the plaintiff are presented the same reducing the claim to Rs. 300/-. The defendant raised the plea that under the above circumstances the plaint must be deeded to have been properly presented on the 23of August and by that date the claim had the come time-barred.

Holding that the presentation of the plain on 11-6-1954, was not in the proper Court and the period of vacation from 9-5-1954 to 10-6-1954 cor not be tacked on to that which could be avail of under S. 14 of the Limitation Act the District Munsif dismissed the suit as barred by limitation taking 23-8-1954, to be the date of properly presentation of the plaint.

Now the Madras Act 16 of 1951 we enacted on 3-7-1951. Section 2 of that Act amend the Madras Civil Courts Act, 1873, as follows:

(1) In S. 12 for the words three thousand rupees'' in the second paragraph which relates the jurisdiction of the District Munsifs, the wo(sic)''five thousand rupees shall be substituted

(2) In S. 28, for the words ''Rupees thousand'' in the second paragraph which relate to the small cause jurisdiction of the District B(SIC) Subordinate Judge the words two thousand rupees and for the words rupees three hundred in the third paragraph which relates to sn(sic) cause jurisdiction of the District Munsifs. words ''five hundred rupees'' shall be substituted.

In and by the Madras Act 16 of 1951 it was ivied that the amendment Act shall come force on such date as the State Government or by notification in the Fort St. George Gaz appoint. In G. O. Ms. No. 437 Law dated 5 1954, published in the Andhra Gazette Extraordinary of the same date the Governor of And appointed 20-5-1954 as the date on which the act shall come into force. In the Andhra Gaz dated 2-9-1954 the following notification made the High Court was published:

Small Cause Jurisdiction - Investiture powers: By virtue of the powers conferred by s(sic) of the Madras Civil Courts Act (III) of 1873 amended by the Madras Civil and Village Cc(sic) (Amendment) Act, 1951, (Madras Act XV 1951) the High Court is hereby pleased to the following revised notification, dated 23-7-(sic) published at page 1041 of Part II of the For George Gazette dated 3-8-1926, as subsequent amended and of the High Court''s notifies dated 25-9-1942 published at page 1257 of II of the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 1942:

All Subordinate Judges in the State Andhra shall have and exercise the jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of Small Causes for (sic)1 of suits cognizable by such Courts up to the amount of two thousand rupees and all District Munsifs within the State of Andhra shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction up to the amount of five hundred rupees

the short question for determination in the revision petition is: When does this Notification take (sic)ect? Under S. 28 of the Madras Civil Courts the III of 1873 as amended by the Madras Act of 1951 it is provided that.

The High Court may by notification in the (ic)lcial Gazette, invest within such local limits it shall from time to time appoint any District or Subordinate Judge with the jurisdiction a Judge of a Court of Small Causes for the of suits cognizable by such Courts up to the amount of Rupees two thousand and any District Munsif with the same jurisdiction-ion up to the amount of Rupees five hundred and may by like notification whenever it (sic)Iks fit withdraw such jurisdiction from the district or Subordinate Judge or Munsif so indued.

Was by virtue of the power vested under S. 28 he Madras Civil Courts Act as amended by Madras Act 16 of 1951 that the High Court had be the above Notification investing all Sub orderly Judges in the State of Andhra to exercise jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes for trial of suits cognisable by such Courts up to amount of Rs. 2,000/- and all the District sins- within the State of Andhra to exercise same jurisdiction up to the amount of Rs.

This notification issued by the High Court on 1954 was actually published in the Andhra state on 2-9-1954. S. 21 of the Madras General (sic)ses Act which provides for publication of or and Notifications in the Gazette is in the ping terms:

Wherein any act or in any rule passed under any Act it is directed that any order notion or other matter shall be notified or published such notification or publication shall under the Act otherwise provides be deemed to be made if it is published in the Port St. George Gazette.

A combined reading of S. 28 of the Madras civil Courts Act as amended and S. 21 of the as General Clauses Act makes it clear that ate of the publication of the notification in gazette is the date when the Notification be deemed to be duly made for a published in the official Gazette is a precondition for notification taking effect.

In the present case the Notification made be High Court appears to have been received the District Munsif on 27-8-1954. On 20-4-1954 notification issued by the Governor of Andhra 20-5-1954 as the date on which the Madras 6 of 1951 shall take effect but that Notification by itself would not have the effect of (sic)ing the Small Causes Court with Jurisdiction ess it is followed by a Notification by High Court and that the Notification though on 20-8-1954, should be deemed to have been made only on 2-9-1954 as that was the date which the Notification of the High Court was (sic)ed in the Gazette.

The plaintiff filed the suit on 11-6-1954 District Munsifs Court at a time when I no Jurisdiction to entertain suits beyond nit of Rs. 300/-. Admittedly therefore, on the on which the plaint was presented the (sic)t Munsifs Court was not competent to entertain the suit. There is an order passed by the Munsif on 5-8-1954 that the plaint be returned for presentation to the proper Court but the plaint was actually returned on 23-8-1954.

In the above view the District Munsifs Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the date on which it was presented in that Court. The period between 9-5-1954 to the 10-6-1954 cannot be tacked on to that period which could be availed of under S. 14 of the Limitation Act. There is a direct decision in Thadi Chandrayya and Others Vs. Vaitla Seethanna and Another, of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court consisting of Leach C. J. and Krlshnaswami Ayyangar J. against the plaintiff.

In the case before them a plaint filed within time was returned on the question of pecuniary Jurisdiction for presentation to the proper Courts. The plaintiff represented the plaint to the same Court after amending the plaint by striking out part of his claim and on the date of representation of the plaint it was time-barred. On the above facts the learned Judges held that the suit must be deemed to have been instituted on the date of representation when the Court had jurisdiction to entertain and was, therefore, barred.

The decision of the District Munsif holding that the suit was barred is therefore, correct and there are no grounds for Interference with his order. The revision petition is dismissed but as the respondent is not represented there will be-no order as to costs.

Mr. Kesari has at my request appeared as Amicus curiae and has assisted me by placing the relevant authorities before me. I am grateful to him.