Padmanabhuni Gurappa Chetti and Others vs Penugonda Pullayya Chetti and Others

It appears to me that the construction put by the judge on Section 14, paragraph 2 of the Act of Limitations cannot be supported. That

paragraph provides that the interval between the institution of the suit and the date of staying proceedings u/s 20, Civil Procedure Code, and the

time requisite for going from the court in which proceedings are stayed to the court in which the suit is reinstituted, shall be excluded from the

period of limitation prescribed for the suit. In the case before me, the order staying proceedings was made on the 12th March 1891, the plaint was

returned on the 17th April 1891 and the suit was reinstituted on the 23rd April 1891. If the interval between 12th March and 17th April 1891

were not deducted, the suit would be clearly barred and the question for determination, therefore, is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the

deduction. It is clear that the language of Section 14 does not authorize the deduction. The words ""date of the order staying proceedings"" and ""time

requisite for going from the one court to the other,"" do not include the interval between the dates of the stay of proceedings and of the return of the

plaint. The reason for not so including that interval is that u/s 21 of the Civil Procedure Code, the plaintiff is not chargeable with any court fee when

the suit is reinstituted under an order u/s 20, Civil Procedure Code. Neither the language of Section 14 nor the intention inferrible from it, lends

support to the judge''s opinion. It is argued by respondents'' pleader that by Section 20, Civil Procedure Code, a right to ask for a return of the

plaint is conferred on the plaintiff. This is true, but the right so conferred is not intended to extend the period of limitation for by Section 21, Civil

Procedure Code, liberty is reserved to him to reinstitute the suit without producing the original plaint or paying any additional court fee. There is

nothing, I think, unreasonable in this. With reference to Section 57, Civil Procedure Code, the same view was taken by this Court in Krishna

Variar v. Kunji Taravanar, L. P. A. No. 77 of 1892 and by the Calcutta High Court in Abhoya Churn Chuckerbutty v. Gour Mohun Dutt, 24 W.

R (C. R) 26

I set aside the order of the judge and restore the decree of the District Munsif. Respondents will pay appellants'' costs in this and the Lower

Appellate Court.