KUTTY SANKARAN NAIR Vs. SANKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to revise the decree in a small cause suit brought on a promissory note. The point taken in revision is that the suit was barred by limitation and the lower court was, therefore, wrong in decreeing it. The promissory note was executed on 14-12-1953 and the suit was brought on 31-8-1957. The suit is, therefore, prima facie barred by limitation, but the plaintiff relies upon the Madras Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Ordinance, 1953 (Madras Ordinance V of 1953), the Madras Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act, 1954 (Madras Act V of 1954), and the Madras Indebted Agriculturists (Repayment of Debts) Act, 1955 (Madras Act No I of 1955) to save the suit from limitation. It was conceded before me that the defendant was an agriculturist within the definition of that term as given in these enactments during the relevant times.

(2.) S.3 of the Madras Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Ordinance, V of 1953, provided:

(3.) Although this case can easily be decided on a plain reading of the relevant sections of the three enactments, the plaintiffs counsel also relied upon the decision of Mr. Justice Varadaraja Iyengar in 1958 KLT 804 , in support of his contention that the suit is not barred by limitation. In that case the learned Judge, after an elaborate consideration of case law, came to the conclusion that the effect of these three enactments would be to extend the period of limitation. It would appear from Para.9 of the judgment in that case that it was urged before him that my judgment in C. R. P. No. 258 of 1957 would support the contention that these enactments would not serve to extend a period of limitation. Before me also in this case it was contended by the revision petitioners counsel that the decision in C.R.P. 258 of 1957 was to the effect that the period of limitation would not be extended. Para.9 of the judgment in, 1958 KLT 804 reads: