VENKATARATNAM NAIDU Vs. RAMARAJU
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Mr. Ross, the District Judge, held that the suit No. 15 of 1892 on the file of the District Court of Godavari, was not sustainable as causes of action were wrongly joined, and the consequence was the plaintiff had to bring three separate suits in the Munsif's Court. The period during which the original combined suit was pending in the District Court, viz., from the 30 September 1892 to 23 October 1893, is a period, which the plaintiff is entitled to deduct under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, this case being analogous to that decided in Assan V/s. Pathumma I.L.R. 22 Mad. 894, following the Full Bench decision of this Court in Venkiti Nayak V/s. Murugappa Chetti I.L.R. 20 Mad. 48 see also Mathura Singh V/s. Bhawany Singh I.L.R. 22 All. 248. When such deduction is inside from the period to which the plaintiff was entitled under exhibit F, which is the latest acknowledgment, this suit is in time if the former suit was prosecuted with due diligence. We must ask the Subordinate Judge to submit a finding on this point....
(2.) [In compliance with the above order, the Subordinate Judge submitted a finding to the effect that the former suit had been prosecuted with due diligence.]
(3.) The appeal and the memorandum of objections put in by the first respondent coming on for final hearing after the receipt of the above finding, the Court delivered the following.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.