KOTHA DHANALAKSHMI Vs. BANDI SREENIVASULU REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner presented a plaint on 26. 9. 2003, in the Court of the senior Civil Judge, Kadapa against the respondent for recovery of a sum of rs. 1,46,200/- on the strength of two promissory notes, dated 18. 2. 1998 and 10. 5. 1998. It was given S. R. No. 6059 of 2003. The trial Court, through its order, dated 14. 10. 2003, rejected the plaint on the ground that the suit claim was barred by limitation. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed CMA No. 16 of 2004 in the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Kadapa. The CMA was dismissed on 19. 4. 2005. Hence, this civil revision petition.

(2.) SRI S. V. Bhatt, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondent initiated proceedings under the Provincial insolvency Act, 1920 (for short 'the Act')by filing I. P. No. 13 of 1999 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa. He contends that on dismissal of the I. P. , AS No. 65 of 2003 was filed in the Court of the Principal district Judge, Kadapa and as soon as the appeal was dismissed, the present suit was filed. He contends that not only the claim was shown in the schedule of the i. P. , but also the petitioner was impleaded as party to the proceedings under the Act. According to the learned Counsel, the period during which the proceedings under the Act were pending deserves to be excluded in the context of computation of limitation.

(3.) SRI A. Manohar Reddy, the learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that though the pendency of the proceedings under the Act may hinder the progress of the suit for recovery of amount, it cannot arrest the limitation vis-a-vis the promissory note. He places reliance upon a judgment of this court in Allampati Gopalareddy v. Ponnavolu Raghava Reddy, 1984 (2) ALT 14.