Judgment.- This is the plaintiff’s revision in which the sole question that falls for determination is whether the plaintiff’s suit is within limitation. What happened was that the plaintiff instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 125 balance amount due on a promissory note dated 4th July, 1956 before the Panchayat Court on 23rd April, 1962. An objection was raised by the defendant that the Panchayat Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain that suit and consequently the plaint was returned on 15th November, 1962. The plaintiff, thereafter filed the suit before the District Munsif, Tirupathi on 16th November, 1962. It must be noted that the promissory note bears an endorsement of the payment of Re. 1 signed by the defendant dated 24th April, 1959. The defendant raised question of limitation. The lower Court applying the provisions of section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act held that even after excluding the period which was spent by the plaintiff in prosecuting his suit in a wrong Court, i.e., the Panchayat Court, the suit will be barred by limitation by one day, and dismissed the suit. It is argued that the learned District Munsiff has erred in computing the time which the plaintiff has spent in prosecuting the suit in the wrong Court. The contention is that both the days, i.e., the day on which the suit was filed and the day when the plaint was returned, have to be excluded and if exclusion takes place in this manner, the suit will be within time. I find sufficient force in this contention. It is not denied by the other side that the learned District Munsiff. has erred in computing the period. It is, however, contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the lower Court has erred in assuming that all the requirements of section 14 have been satisfied in this case. His contention is that it was obligatory on the part of the plaintiff under Order 7, rule 6, Civil Procedure Code, to show in the plaint that he was bona fide prosecuting the suit in a wrong Court and give the circumstances to establish that fact. As the plaintiff did not bring out the circumstance which would fulfil the requirements of section 14 of the Limitation Act, the lower Court has erred in applying the provisions of section 14 to the facts of this case. As the plaintiff did not bring out the circumstance which would fulfil the requirements of section 14 of the Limitation Act, the lower Court has erred in applying the provisions of section 14 to the facts of this case. In support of this contention, he relied on Sri Kasikananda Gnanacharya Swamigal v. Saravanaperumal Pillai and another1, and Madhavarao Narayan Rao Patwardhart v. The State of Bombay2. It was, however, contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of Order 7, rule 6, Civil Procedure Code, are technical in their character, and mere omission to mention the grounds of exclusion in the plaint should not result in depriving the plaintiff from getting a decree. In support of that contention he relied on Manoharlal v. Jagmohanlal3, and another two cases, one of the Madhya Pradesh and the other of Calcutta High Courts to the same effect. It would, however, be clear from the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court referred to above and an earlier decision in Ramaswami Chetty v. Anaiya Padayachi and others4, that it was obligatory under Order 7, rule 6 for the plaintiff to mention all the necessary circumstances which entitled him to claim exclusion of the time spent in prosecuting his claim in a wrong Court. Admittedly, no such circumstances are mentioned in the plaint. The plaint, which was returned by the Panchayat Court, without any material alteration, was presented before the Civil Court. Even if it is assumed that if the circumstances of the case show that the plaintiff is entitled to the exclusion of the time he spent in prosecuting before the Panchayat Court, even then there are no circumstances in the case which indicate that he was bona fide prosecuting the same before a wrong Court. The mere fact that the suit was being prosecuted before a wrong Court and on objection of the defendant, plaint was returned and then presented to proper Court, by itself does not constitute justifiable conduct on the part of the plaintiff.. He ought to be vigilant in finding out the jurisdiction of the Court before whom he is filing his suit and whether it is the proper Court in the eye of law to grant him the relief. Now it is clear that the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Court does not exceed Rs. 100. He ought to be vigilant in finding out the jurisdiction of the Court before whom he is filing his suit and whether it is the proper Court in the eye of law to grant him the relief. Now it is clear that the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Court does not exceed Rs. 100. A little enquiry from the proper quarters would have been enough. The plaintiff in his negligence, straightway filed the suit in the wrong Court. No case is made out as to at whose instance he did so. In the absence of any explanation in that behalf, it is obvious that he cannot take advantage of section 14. Section 14 enjoins that the time spentin prosecuting the claim in a Court which has no jurisdiction can be excluded only when the plaintiff proves that he was bona fide prosecuting the claim. The burden to allege and prove that obviously is on the plaintiff. There are no circumstances in the case which indicate that he was prosecuting it bona fide. That is what is decided in the above cited two cases referred to by the learned Counsel for the respondent. Although, I do not agree with the conclusion of the trial Court in regard to computation of the period, I think, the conclusion is correct because the plaintiff has failed to prove that he was bona fide prosecuting his claim in the Panchayat Court. He cannot, therefore, draw upon section 14 of the Limitation Act for excluding the time spent in prosecuting the claim in the wrong Court. In the result, the lower Court was, therefore, right in dismissing the plaintiff’s suit. The Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. K.N.R. ---- Revision dismissed.