KUNHAPPU Vs. CHINTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is by the defendant against the judgment and decree in a small cause suit and the only question raised is one of limitation which the court below found against him.

(2.) The suit was based upon a promissory note dated 7-7-1952 and was filed on 30-5-1956 after the expiry of the three years period of limitation prescribed for it. The plaintiff however claimed exclusion of the period between 5-12-1953 and 1-7-1955 tinder various legislative enactments in the interval, prohibiting institution of suits against agriculturist debtors to which class the defendant admittedly belonged. These enactments commenced with Ordinance V of 1953 and ended with Act I of 1955. It was not denied for the defendant that if the whole period claimed could be excluded, the suit would be within time. But it was contended that all the legislation except the last one, viz. Act I of 1955 were passed for the temporary relief of agriculturists debtors, so as to remain in force only for the periods specified therein and with the expiry of the respective periods they became totally unavailable to the plaintiff. The court below found no warrant for this contention. On the other hand, according to it, the limitation which ceased to run with the passing of the Ordinance V of 1953 in the beginning started running again on 1-7-1955 when under Act 1 of 1955 the recovery of debts was allowed by law, even though to the extent of a fraction of the claim.

(3.) The short question is whether the view taken by the lower court is correct. Now S.3 of Ordinance V of 1953 which came into force on 5-12-1953 provided for bar of suit and applications as follows: