LAWS(MAD)-1960-6-4

VEERASWAMI REDDY Vs. KANAKAMMAL

Decided On June 21, 1960
Veeraswami Reddy Appellant
V/S
KANAKAMMAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant is the petitioner. On the 1st March 1951 he executed a promissory note for Rs. 200 in favour of the plaintiff. Some two years thereafter, the defendant left India for Ceylon and has not since come back. In July 1958 the plaintiff filed a suit on the promissory note in the court of the District Munsif, Sholinghur. The defendant filed a written statement in which he contended that the suit note was not supported by consideration and that it was time -barred. The learned Munsif overruled these contentions and decreed the suit. The defendant has come to this court in revision.

(2.) THE first contention of Mr. Ratnam, the learned advocate for the petitioner, may be thus expressed. Though Section 13 of the Limitation Act provides that in computing the period of limitation prescribed for a suit the time during which the defendant has been absent from India should be excluded, still Section 9 enacts that when once time has begun to run no subsequent disability or inability to sue stops it. In the present case the promissory note was executed on 1st March 1951. Time began to run immediately thereafter. The absence of the petitioner outside India did not by virtue of Section 9 stop time from running. The suit was filed more than seven years after the promissory note was executed. The claim is therefore barred. In support of this contention he referred to the decision in Narronji Bhimji v. Mugniram Chandaji, ILR 6 Bom 103. The material facts there were as follows:

(3.) THIS revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs.