ACHUTHAN NAIR Vs. VELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is by the plaintiff against an order refusing to review the judgment and decree in a small cause suit. The suit was for the realisation of monies due to the plaintiff under a cause of action which arose on 15.6.1124. The suit was filed on the 15th Makaram 1127 but the defendant contended that the suit was barred by limitation since the applicable period of three years should be calculated on the basis of the British calendar by virtue of the definition of year in S.2(42) of the Travancore - Cochin Interpretation and General Clauses Act, VII of 1125 which had by then come into force and if so calculated the terminus a quo was the 28th January 1949 corresponding to 15th Makaram 1124 and the three years period expired by the 28th January 1952, but the suit was filed on the 29th January 1952 which corresponded to the 15th Makaram 1127. This contention was upheld by the Trial Court which accordingly dismissed the suit. The plaintiff subsequently filed a petition to review the judgment on the ground of error in law in that the court below had ignored the plaintiffs vested right to the application of Malabar calender under and by virtue of the Cochin General Clauses Act, III of 1079 which was in force at the time of the transaction but which had been repealed by the Travancore - Cochin General Clauses Act, VII of 1125.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the substantive question of limitation for the suit cannot be allowed to be canvassed in this revision against the order refusing review. There is some force in this contention but as I did not wish to dispose of the matter on this narrow ground and as revision was possible against the judgment itself, I heard the matter fully. In my judgment there is no substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the Malabar and not the British calendar was applicable to the case. It is well settled that the law of limitation applicable to a suit or proceeding is the law in force at the date of the institution of the suit or proceeding. And without doubt the law applicable to the instant suit was the Indian Limitation Act read along with the Travancore - Cochin General Clauses Act, VII of 1125. The argument of learned Counsel would imply the existence in the plaintiff of a vested right in the definition of the word year contained in the Cochin General Clauses Act for purpose of construction of the provision in the Indian Limitation Act as to three years limit of time for the suit merely because that definition was in existence at the date of the transaction. But this is impossible.

(3.) In the result, there is no substance in the revision and it is dismissed with costs.