AMAR CHAND INANI versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1973] 2 S.C.R. 684 · Decided: 13-10-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. GROVER · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

AMAR CHAND !NANI 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
October 13, 1972 
[A. N· GROVER, K. K. MATHEW AND A. K. MuKHERJEA, JJ.] 
'Indian Limitation A.ct, 1908-S. 4, 14, 15 (a} read wit/1 S. 80 of t/Je 
•Civil Procedure Code-Whether the Notice period to the Railways is to 
be excluded for the purpose of limitation. 
. Art. 221 Iindian Limitation Act, 1908, provides a period of one year 
for a suit rot compensation for injw·y to the person from the date wh,en 
the injury was sust~d. In the present ca,e, the injury was sustainod 
by the Appellant on January 1, 1958, while travelling by train 
from 
Ambala Cant!. to Delhi and the suit should have been filed on January 
1, 1959; b!lt as the Appellant bad to serve a notice under S.80 of the 
C.P .C. before filing tlr. suit, the notiqo was served on th~ 
Oeneral 
Manager on December 29, 1958. The suit was originally ~ 
.''l Kamal 
Court on March 2, 195.9 as March 1, 1959 was a holiday. Later, the 
suit wa• transferred to the Sub-Judge's ·eourt at Panipat which by its 
()Ider returned the plaiitrt for presentation to tlx:. proper Court, as the 
Mohri Railway Station wh,ere the injury was sustained, was outside the 
jurisdiction of that Court. The plaint was, ultimately, filed before Sub-
.Judge's Court at Ambala. 
The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation and 
·the High Court also confirmed the decision. Before this Court, Counsel 
for the appellant raised th,e following points :-(!) The suit·· could not 
have been U.Stituted without givi.i>g 2 months' notice U/S 80 of C.P.C 
and if this period of 2 months is excluded for the purpose of limitati;;;?, 
the 111if was within time. 
(2) that it the Karna! Court WlS not the 
proper Court in which the suit ·should. have been filed, the appellant was 
entitled to the benefit of S.4 of the Llmitation Act: (3) that the Kuna! 
Court had jurisdiction to entertain the plaint a:nd therefore, that was t!ie 
proper Court for the purpose of S. 4 of the Act; ( 4) that under S. 14 of 
·the Act, the Appellant was to get the benefit of excluding the period during 
which he was prosecuting the suit at Karn•! and Panipat. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : (i) S.80 of the C.P .C. pr<wides, among othtt things, that 
·no suit shall be "instituted agai:r>st the Railways until the expiration of two 
months after nvtice in writing has been delivered. 
S.80 only prescribes 
a condition precedent for the inctitution of the rnit and has nothing to 
do with. the poriod of limitation for a suit. 
The appellant ca.ooot wtit 
till the 29th of Demember 1958 as the period of limitation was to expire 
M January I, 1959. [687B] 
(ii) Section 4 of the Limitation Act provides that where the period 
of limitation prescribed for any suit expires on a day wren the Court 
is closed, the suit may be instituted on the reopening day. 
In the present 
C11Se, if the Kamal Court was ir1ot the proper Court, the plaintiff would 
not be entitled to the benefit of S.4. 
He can get the benefit of S.4 only 
if the suit were filed in the proper Court. [687E] 
· 
Maqbul Ahmed and Others v. Prctap Narain Singh artd Others, 62 
I.A. 80, referred to. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
B 
F 
a 
II 
A 
B 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
AMAR CHAND v. UNION (Mathew, J.) 
685 
(iii) The appellant cannot get the benefit of s. 14 of the Limita-
tion Act because even if the appellant was entitled to get an exclusion 
of the time during which he was pro.,cuting the suit in the Kernal •nd 
Panipat Court, the suit would rwt be in time as the fil'ing of the suit in 
the Kamal Court wz.i beyond the period of limitation. [688B-C] 
(iv) 
Further, the appellant's contention that the fili'llg of the suit at 
the proper Court at Ambala was a continuation of the suit filed at Karna! 
and Panipat, has no force, because when the plaint was returned for 
presentafion to the proper Court and was prosented iJll that Court, the 
suit can be deemed to be in•tituted in the proper Court. only when the 
plaint was presented in that Court. The suit instituted at the prop:r Court 
at Arnbala was not a continuation of the suit filed in the Karl!lal Court. 
[688El 
Hirachand Succaram Gandhy & Co. v. G.l.P. Ry. Co. A.I.R. 1928 
Bombay 421; Bimla Prasad Muker;i v .. Laksh11"i Devi & Ors. A.I.R. 
1926 Calcutta 355 and Ram Kishun v. Ashirbad, I.L.R. 29 Patna, 1199, 
referred to. 
(v) 
Wheth<or Kamal Court was the proper Court and had jurisdic-
to en"'rtain the plaint or not in the facts and circumstances of the case 
the appellant had never raised these cont

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.