LAWS(DLH)-1965-4-7

HARNAM SINGH GANDHIOK Vs. MANAK SINGH

Decided On April 27, 1965
HARNAM SINGH GANDHIOK Appellant
V/S
MANAK SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Harnam Singh Gandhiok, defendant No. 1, borrowed Rs. 20, 000.00 from the Rawalpindi Branch of the Traders' Bank Ltd., defendant No. 2, and executed a demand promissory note for the said amount. Defendant No. 1 also agreed to pay interest on the amount at the rate of 7 per cent per annum with half-yearly rests. The liability was acknowledged by Harnam Singh on 12th of July 1948 by his letters Exhibits P. 3 and P. 4. After adjustment of Rs. 690.00 credited by the Traders Bank Ltd., Defendant No. 2 to the account of Harnam Singh, Defendant No. 1 and of Rs. 10/6/6 debited to him on account of Bank charges a sum of Rs 19, 320/6/6 was due by the defendant No. 1 to the Bank. The plaintiff alleged that on the 5th of July 1952 the Traders Bank Ltd. transferred the aforesaid note to the plaintiff at Delhi for consideration. He claimed to be a holder in due course of the said promissory note. In these circumstances the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 24, 265/10/4 together with future interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum till realisation. The trial Court by judgment dated 18th March 1955 granted the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 20,079/2/4.

(2.) The only ground that has been urged before us on behalf of the appellant is that the suit was barred by time. It is common ground between the parties that the suit would be within time only if Traders Bank Ltd. defendant No. 2 is shown to be a displaced person. That h stated to be so because the plaintiff is an assignee from defendant No. 2 and the benefit of section 36 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951, would be available only if the assignor was a displaced person. The plaintiff claimed that the suit was within time because of section 36 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951. Section 36 inter alia provides that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 or in any special or local law or in any agreement, any suit or other legal proceeding in respect whereof the period of limitation was extended by section 8 of the Displaced Persons (Institution of Suits) Act, 1948 (Act XLVII of 1948) may be instituted at any time within one year from the commencement of the Act.The suit was admittedly brought within one year of the commencement of the said Act. The only question, therefore, to be considered is whether the suit is one in respect whereof the period of limitation was extended by section 8 of Act 47 of 1948. As we have said earlier it is not disputed that in case the Traders Bank Ltd., defendant No. 2 is held to be a displaced person, the suit would be within time.

(3.) We, therefore, proceed to consider whether the Traders Bank Ltd., defendant No. 2 has baen rightly held to be a displaced person by the trial Court. Mr. G. S. Vohra learned counsel for the appellant submits that a Bank cannot be held to be a displaced person within the meaning of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951, because displaced Bank is separately defined by sub-section (7) of section 2 and is treated as a separate category from a displaced person as defined in sub-section (10) of section. 2 of the said Act. In our opinion this question does not arise at all in this case. All that we have to decide is whether the suit is one in respect whereof the period of limitation was extended by section 8 of the Displaced persons (Institution of Suits) Act 1948. The answer to the question will, therefore, depend on whether or not the Traders Bank Ltd. is held to be a displaced person within the meaning of Act 47 of 1948. Section 8 of Act 47 of 1948, as amended by the Displaced Persons (Institution of Suits and legal Proceedings) Amendment Act, 1950, is in the following terms-