Chhangani, J. - (1.) This is a first appeal by the defendants against the decree dated 14th of August, 1951 for an amount of Rs. 9,500/3/-passed by the Civil Judge, Kishangarh against them and in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents and the sole point for determination is whether the plaintiffs-respondents were rightly given by the trial court the benefit under section 14 of the Limitation Act to bring within time their suit which was admittedly presented beyond the prescribed period of Limitation. The relevant facts may very shortly be stated as follows:-- The plaintiffs-respondents, a partnership firm deal in the purchase and sale of gold, silver and yarn and also carry on business as commission agents. The defendants who are the members of a joint Hindu family firm entered into various transactions of sale and purchase of gold, silver and yarn during period from Bhadva Vadi 12, samwat 2000 to Kartik Sudi 15, samwat 2000 through the agency of the plaintiffs' firm, alleging that as a result of these transactions an amount of Rs. 11,454/15/-became due to the plaintiffs' firm from the defendants. The plaintiffs filed a suit for the recovery of that amount in the court of Sub- Judge, First Class, Beawar on the 17th of May, 1944. The defendants resisted the plaintiffs' suit and, inter alia, pleaded that there was a contract between the parties to the effect that the suits arising between them would be instituted in Kishangarh, Courts and, therefore, the plaintiffs could not bring the suit in the court of the Sub-Judge, First Class, Bewar, The Sub Judge, First Class, Beawar did not try the suit on merits. It held that the agreement between the parties to the effect that suits would be instituted in Kishangarh courts should be enforced and the plaintiffs be asked to institute the suit at Kishangarh Court. It, therefore, directed the return of the plaint to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper court on 14th of January, 1947. An appeal by the plaintiffs against the order of the Sub Judge, First Class Beawar was dismissed by the Judicial Commissioner, vide his order dated 24th of March, 1949.
(2.) Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed the present suit out of which this appeal arises for an amount of Rs. 11,454/15/-in the court of the District Judge, Kishangarh, which was ultimately tried by the Senior Civil Judge. The defendants raised various pleas including that of limitation. The plea of the defendants relating to limitation was decided on 23rd of August, 1950 against the defendants. The trial court relied upon Chittaranjan Guha v. Parul Rani Nandi AIR 1946 Cal 112 and observed that the question whether parties can by an agreement restrict the choice of forum was not free from doubt and consequently the plaintiffs' action in filing the suit in the Beawar court cannot be said to be clearly against law. It, therefore, gave benefit of doubt to the plaintiffs respondents. Ultimately, the suit was decreed on, 14th of August, 1951. The defendants thereupon filed the present appeal and simply raised the question of limitation as stated above. The appeal was heard by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Ranawat and Sharma JJ. OB 26th of March, 1958. Before that Bench, it was argued that the Beawar court being a foreign court in 1944 was not a court to which the Kishangarh State Limitation Act, 1944 could be applied and, therefore, the plaintiffs could not get the benefit of the pendency of suit in that court. The respondents answered this contention by pleading that the Beawar court could not be regarded as a foreign court. The Division Bench formulated the following question and referred it to a Full Bench of this Court: (Since reported in AIR 1959 Raj 149): "Whether advantage can be taken under Section 15 of the Kishangarh State Limitation Act comesponding to Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act of the pendency of a suit in the courts of the erstwhile territory of the Ajmer-Merwara in subsequent suit in Kishangarh Court in view of the accession of Kishangarh State to the Dominion of India and thereafter its becoming a part of the Union of India and specially the merger of the erstwhile State of Ajmer with Rajasthan under the State Re-organization Act, 1956?"
(3.) The Full Bench after hearing the parties at length divided the question in the following two parts:- "(1) Whether the plaintiffs could take advantage of Section 15 of the Kishangarh State Limitation Act (corresponding to Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act) of the pendency of a suit in the courts of the erstwhile territory of Ajmer-Merwara, in a subsequent suit in Kishangarh court. (2) Whether such an advantage could be taken in view of the accession of Kishangarh State to the Dominion of India and thereafter its having become a part of the Union of India and specially the merger of the erstwhile State of Ajmer-Merwara with Rajasthan under the States Reorganization Act, 1956.";