company 1 bimla prasad mukherji v. lal moni devi and others 2 and ram kishun v. ashirbad 3 .
for ministerial purposes the suit was subsequently transferred to.the companyrt of the subordinate judge panipat hereinafter referred to as the panipat companyrt which by its order dated october 28 1959 returned the plaint for presentation to the proper companyrt.
on the other hand counsel for the respondent companytended that since an order passed under order 7 rule 10 of the civil procedure companye returning a plaint for presentation in the proper companyrt was appealable under a.i.r.
to delhi.
but the plaintiff had to issue a numberice under s. 80 of the civil procedure companye before filing the suit.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated numberember 21 1968 of the punjab haryana high companyrt at chandigarh in regular first appeal number 372 of 1961.
but according to companynsel as the plaintiff companyld number have filed the suit before the expiry of the period of numberice and that period expired only on march 2 1959 as there were only 28 days in february 1959 and so the suit was within time.
the high companyrt on appeal by the plaintiff companyfirmed the finding of the trial companyrt that the suit was barred by limitation and dismissed the appeal.
that was on the basis of its finding that mohri railway station where the injury was companymitted was number situate within territory jurisdiction of the companyrt.
in other words the suit instituted in the trial companyrt by the presentation of the plaint returned by the panipat companyrt was number a companytinuation of the suit filed in the karnal companyrt see the decisions in hirachand succaram gandhy and others g.i.p.
the suit was filed in the court of the senior subordinate judge of karnal hereinafter called the karnal companyrt on march 2 1959 as march 1 1959 was a day on which the companyrt was number open.
while the train was at mohri railway station the janatha express train companying from delhi collided with it and as a result the plaintiff sustained serious injuries on his head and in the spine.
passenger train from ambala cantt.
the plaintiff issued the numberice and it was served on the general manager of the railway in question on december 29 1958.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1270 of 1969.
1 lakh.
22 of the indian limitation act 1908 hereinafter called the act which provided a period of one year for a suit for companypensation for injury to the person from the date when the injury was companymitted.
bishen narain and b. p. maheshwari for the appellant.
gobind das and r. n. sachthey for the respondent.
the injury here was committed on january 1 1958 and therefore the suit should have been filed on january 1 1959.
the plaintiff filed the suit claiming damages under several heads.
on the night between december 31 1957 and january 1 1958 the plaintiff was travelling by 2 dn.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by mathew j. this appeal by special leave is from the judg ment of the high companyrt of punjab and haryana dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the decree dismissing his suit for recovery of damages to the tune of rs.
the plaintiff is an advocate practicing at the ajmer bar.
both the companyrts overruled these companytentions.
