AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
2 paragraphs · 119 wordsJackson, J.—In this case, the petitioners'' plaint was time-barred when the Court rose and he pursued the District Munsiff to his club, where he declined to receive it, after 6-30 p.m. I am now asked to treat it, as if he had received it, because in the light of Din Ram v. Hari Das (1912) 34 All. 482 and Sathaya Padayachi v. Soundarathachi AIR 1924 Mad. 448, he might have received it.
This cannot be done. The District Munsiff was within his discretion, in refusing to receive a plaint at his club and it is impossible to consider at this stage what might have happened if he had exercised his discretion in another way the petition is dismissed.