PALANIRAJA Vs. JAYALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition has been preferred by defendants 1 and 3 to 5 in O.S.No.124 of 1988, First Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Pondicherry, against the finding in favour of the respondent-plaintiff in the suit relating to the preliminary issue on limitation. In the suit (O.S.No.124 of 1988) instituted by the respondent, she had prayed for the recovery of a sum of Rs.31,429 together with interest, said to be due on two promissory notes dated 18. 8. 1982 and 25. 3. 1983 for Rs.15,000 and Rs.4,100 respectively. Prior to the institution of the suit, on 13. 3. 1988 by a notice the respondent made a demand for the repayment of the principal amounts together with interest and since that was not complied with, the suit was instituted on 30. 3. 1988. Amongst others, an objection was raised by the petitioners in the written statement to the effect that the suit was barred by limitation. That issue was taken up as a preliminary issue and the court below following an unreported decision in M.IIIampuranam v. M.Balakrishnan, C.R.P.No.649 of 1983, dated 3. 8. 1987 found that the period of limitation of thirty years provided under Art.2262 of the French Code Civil would apply and the suit was instituted in time. Aggrieved by the finding so rendered, the petitioners, who are the first defendant and the legal representatives of the deceased second defendant have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sec.115, C.P.C.

(2.) . Learned counsel for the petitioners, encouraged by a recent judgment in Kandasami Mudaliar v. Muthukrishna Moorthy, (1993)1 L.W. 574 contended that in respect of promissory notes, Art.179 of the French Code de Commerce, would apply and that provided for a period of limitation of three years and therefore, the suit instituted on 30. 3. 1988, was barred. In addition, it was submitted that even after coming into force of Sec.6 of the French Establishments (Application of Laws) Order, 1954, extending the applicability of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881). Art.179 of the French Code de Commerce, continued to apply, providing for a period of limitation of three years and therefore, the suit instituted by the respondent, was barred. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that after the coming into force of Scc.6 of the French Establishments (Application of Laws) Order 1954, the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, were extended to Pondicherry Territory and on such extension, the provisions of French Code de Commerce ceased to have effect and therefore, Art. 179 of the French Code de Commerce and the other related provisions, had no application whatever. Learned counsel further submitted that on the extension of the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the Pondicherry territory with effect from 1.1.1964, the normal period of limitation in respect of the suits on promissory notes would only be three years, but, under Sec.29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with Sec.3 thereof, the provisions of French Code Civil prescribing a period of thirty years, would be in the nature of a special law and that has to be read into the schedule of the Limitation Act with reference to the period of limitation prescribed for the institution of suits and if so done, under Art.2262 of the French Code Civil, a period of thirty years would be available and the court below, was, therefore, right in its conclusion with regard to the question of limitation. Reliance in this connection was also placed on the decisions in Sendamarai Animal v. Vijaya Rajagopal Chettiar, (1984)1 M.L.J. 324, Rajamannar Chettiar v. Velyauthu Chettiar, (1984)2 M.L.J. 467 and Mary Roy v. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1011.

(3.) FOR the foregoing reasons, the contention put forward by learned counsel for the petitioners that the suit instituted by the respondent is barred, cannot be accepted and the court below was right in its conclusion on the preliminary issue relating to limitation. The civil revision petition is dismissed with costs.