Sukhdev Singh Kang, J. - (1.) This is a revision petition against the judgment of the Judge, Small Cause Court, Amritsar, who has dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner as having been filed beyond the period of limitation.
(2.) A thumb-nail sketch of the facts necessary for decision of this case will be appropriate at this stage. Amar Nath, petitioner, filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,100.00 in the Court of Senior Subordinate Judge, Amritsar, on the 22nd of June, 1971. It was transferred for disposal according to law to the Court of Shri P. S. Grewal, Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Amritsar. The defendant appeared in Court and put in a written statement on the 2nd of April, 1972. He raised a preliminary objection that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as it was exclusively triable by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Amritsar. The plaintiff-petitioner took time to file replication to the written statement. The case was adjourned to the 12th of April, 1972. On that day the learned counsel for the plaintiff made a statement that the plaint be returned to him for presentation to proper Court. The plaint was accordingly returned to him. 13th and 14th April, 1972, were holidays. The plaint was then presented to the Judge, Small Causes Court, Amritsar, on the 15th of April, 1972. An application was also filed by the plaintiff under section 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the suit in the proper court. He contended therein that he had filed the suit in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge on the advice tendered by his counsel and he had been prosecuting this suit in that Court bona fide and under the mistaken advice given to him by Shri Jagdish Chander, Advocate, who was a fresh entrant to the profession. The proper Court fee had been affixed on the plaint. Both the Courts were situated at Amritsar and the limitation for filing the suit in the Court of Judge, Small Causes as also before Civil Court was the same. A notice of this application was given to the defendant. He contested the application and asserted that the time spent in the Civil Court could not be excluded while computing the period of limitation for filing the suit, because the plaintiff had not been prosecuting that suit bona fide and with due care and caution. The learned Judge disallowed the application for condonation of delay and has dismissed the suit as barred by time. The plaintiff has filed this revision petition under section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act.
(3.) Mr. D. V. Sehgal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the decision of the learned trial Judge is mainly based on the then, prevalent view that the wrong advice tendered by the counsel does not constitute a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. He has contended that the law through judicial interpretation has 'undergone it sea of change since the decisions relied upon the learned trial Judge. There is merit is the contention of the learned counsel. No doubt, in Sewa Singh Vs. Tara Chand and another, A. I. R. 1956 Punjab 30 Kapur, J. (as his Lordship then was) had held that the wrong advice tendered by a counsel did not constitute sufficient cause in the facts and circumstances of that case.;