CHEMBRE VALIYA VEETTIL KUNHU KUTTY AMMAS SON MADHAVAN Vs. CHEMBRE VALIYA VEETTIL KUNHUKUTTY AMMAS SON KARNAVAN AND
LAWS(MAD)-1953-4-37
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on April 09,1953

CHEMBRE VALIYA VEETTIL KUNHU KUTTY AMMA'S SON MADHAVAN Appellant
VERSUS
CHEMBRE VALIYA VEETTIL KUNHUKUTTY AMMA'S SON KARNAVAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Ramaswami, J. - (1.) 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.
(2.) 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 alt 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.
(3.) 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 foot-ing 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.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.