Judgment:
ORDER
Pratap Singh, J.
1. This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment in O.S. No. 209of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif, Uthamapalayam.
2. The short facts are The petitioner herein has filed a suit on the basis of a promissory note dated 16.7.1976 on 20.12.1986. The revision petitioner claimed that the suit was filed in time because the defendant/respondent was not a debtor entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, that the period, viz., 16.1.1975 to 14.7.1978 was covered by the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act and that therefore, the suit could not be laid. His further reason is that he filed the suit promissory note in a proceedings between parties in O.S. No. 451 of 1981, that he got back the suit promissory note only on 30.7.1986 and if that period was excluded, the suit filed by him was in time. The said claim of the revision petitioner was resisted by the respondent on several grounds inter alia contending that the suit filed by the revision petitioner was barred by limitation.
3. The court below has rejected the plea put forth by the revision petitioner and has found that the suit filed by the revision petitioner was barred by limitation. Therefore, the suit filed by the revision petitioner was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the plaintiff/revision petitioner has come forward with the present civil revision petition.
4. Mr. Chandrakanthan, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that the respondent filed a suit in O.S. No. 1491 of 1979 against the revision petitioner herein for permanent injunction, that the revision petitioner had taken up a plea that he was a sub-tenant under the respondent and to substantiate his case, the revision petitioner filed the promissory note in that suit, that the revision petitioner got back the promissory note only on 30.7.1986, that the period from the date on which he produced the promissory note in that suit till the date on which he got return of the promissory note, has to be excluded as per the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, that when it is so excluded, the suit filed by the revision petitioner was in time and that therefore the court below is wrong in holding contra.
5. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by Mr. Chandrakanthan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Sairam, learned Counsel for the respondent. To appreciate the submission made by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner Section 14 of the Limitation Act needs extraction:
14. Exclusion of time of proceeding bonafide in court without jurisdiction: (1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.
[Italics supplied]
This suit is one on promissory note. The suit in1 O.S. No. 1491 of 1979 is one for permanent injunction. It would not fall within the ambit of the clause, which I have underlined in the extracted portion. By no stretch of imagination can it be stated that the prior suit relates to the same matter, which is in issue in the latter suit. I am therefore of the opinion, that it would not fall within the purview of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. So the court below is absolutely correct in holding so. The said finding cannot be interfered with.
6. In view of the above, this civil revision fails and the same shall stand dismissed. No costs.