HARI BABU NAIDU Vs. S ALAMELU AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has posed a problem in giving effect to section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act, 1976. THIS section barred for a short duration, the institution of suits for recovery of debts from agriculturists. The petitioner in this civil revision petition was the defendant in a suit on a promissory note on the file of the Sub-Court, Cuddalore. The petitioner invoked section 3 of the Act as a bar to the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge tried this issue as a preliminary issue. At the end of the inquiry, he held that the section did not apply to this case and posted the suit for further trial on the remaining issues. THIS decision is now questioned by the defendant: in this civil revision petition.

(2.) AT the hearing before me, there was little or no controversy as to the construction of section 3 of the Act or even as to its application to the present case. The parties were at variance only on the manner of giving effect to the provision in the context of the present case.

(3.) THE reckoning of the period of the bar enacted in the section does not involve any feat of calculation. THE date of commencement of the Act was 15th January, 1976, as laid down in section 1(3). Two years and six months from that date would expire on 15th July, 1978. THE bar imposed by the section was, therefore, in force on and from 15th January, i976 until 15th July, 1978, both days inclusive. THE suit against the petitioner in this case had been brought on 6th July, 1978, while the bar under the section was still operative. THE learned Subordinate Judge's finding to the contrary was therefore quite erroneous. His mistake lay in thinking that the operative period of the bar under the section was only two years He had obviously overlooked an amendment, to the section which had enlarged the bar to two years and six months.