KRISHNANKUTTY Vs. MANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petition is filed by the defendant in SC 11/79 of the Munsiff Court, Koothuparamba. Respondent herein filed the suit based on a promissory note. The learned Munsiff decreed the suit overruling the contentions of the defendant.

(2.) The principal contention of the revision petitioner (defendant) is that the promissory note Ext. Al was executed on 21-5-1975 and the suit filed long after the period of limitation is patently barred. Plaintiff had filed an earlier suit (SC. 31/77) and that was withdrawn with permission of the court. That suit happened to be withdrawn as the defendant pleaded benefit under Act 17/1977. Ext. A7 is the order allowing withdrawal of the earlier suit. Plaintiff filed petition in the earlier suit (SC. 31/77) to allow him to withdraw the suit with permission to file another suit later. That petition has been marked as Ext. A6. The court allowed the petition (I.A. 2107/78 in SC. 31/77). Counsel for the respondent (plaintiff) contended that as that petition was allowed the plaintiff had time till 21-8-79 to file the suit and the present suit was filed within that time and therefore there is no bar of limitation. It is true that I.A. 2107/78 in SC. 31/77 was allowed by the Munsiff Court. Merely because the court allowed I. A. 2107/78 it cannot be said that the plaintiff thereby would be in a position to get further time to file the suit beyond the statutory period of limitation. Statutory period of limitation cannot be extended by any court order. Period of limitation may be extended by the intervention of any supervening statute which prevents a plaintiff from instituting suits. For example, in view of the commencement of Debt Relief Act a person may be prevented from instituting suit for a particular period and such statute may provide that when the period expires plaintiff would get further time to file the suit. Provisions to that effect are often found in statutes like Debt Relief Act and Acts or Ordinances regarding temporary stay of eviction. Such is not the case when the court allows the plaintiff to withdraw his suit with liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action. Even though such permission is there, it will not enable the plaintiff to get over the period of limitation. What the court has allowed in this case was only to permit the plaintiff to file fresh suit A court cannot enlarge the period of limitation statutorily fixed when it allows the plaintiff to file fresh suit. What the court can allow is definitely circumscribed by the period of limitation.

(3.) Another aspect to be noticed is that due to the commencement of Act 30/1975 (Kerala Debtors (Temporary Relief) Act, 1975) plaintiff is entitled to get over the statutory period of limitation to file the suit in view of S.3 and 6 of the Act S.3 of the Act reads: