CHOCKALINGA MUDALIAR Vs. MANIVANNA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal raises a point about limitation in regard to a suit for goods sold and delivered. The suit was filed in the District Munsif's Court, Pondicherry. It was dismissed as time barred under the Limitation Act, 1963 (Central Act. No. 36 of 1963). The District Court, on appeal, took the same view. Before the District Court the plaintiff contended that the question of limitation in relation to his suit was governed not by Central Act No. 36 of 1963, but by the French Civil Code. It was further contended that the suit was within time under that Code. But, these contentions were rejected. The question in this second appeal is : which is the appropriate Limitation Law applicable to the suit? Central Act 36 of 1963 or the French Civil Code ?

(2.) A few further facts may be mentioned. The plaintiff is a maligai merchant in Pondicherry. He based his suit claim against the defendant on a sale bill dated 24th January 1967 in respect of goods sold by him on credit to the defendant. The suit was filed on 23rd June 1971. The plaintiff pleaded that the suit was within time. He relied on an endorsement of part -payment dated 25th June 1968 stated to be in the defendant's handwriting. The defendant resisted the suit, pleading that it was time -barred. He denied the alleged endorsement of 25th June 1968. The Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry, who tried the suit, upheld the defendant's plea in bar and dismissed the suit. His findings as to the bar of limitation were confirmed in appeal by the learned Principal District Judge, Pondicherry. Before him, for the first time, the plaintiff put forward the submission that the question of limitation must be considered under the French Civil Code, and not under Central Act No. 36 of 1963. This contention was also rejected. The learned District Judge held that the French Code stood repealed by Central Act 36 of 1963 and the Code could not be invoked in respect of suits, like the present one, filed subsequent to 1st January 1964. The correctness of this decision is now challenged in this second appeal.

(3.) Mr. Masilamani, appearing for the plaintiff, submitted that the provisions of French Civil Code relating to limitation of actions are still in force in the territory of Pondicherry and they govern the present suit. He said that the Limitation Act, 1963 did not repeal the limitation provisions contained in the French Civil Code. According to him, the only law repealed by that Act was the earlier Indian Limitation Act, 1908, and he referred, in that connection, to S.32. He further submitted that far from repealing the limitation provisions enacted in the French Civil Code, Parliament actually saved those provisions. He relied for this argument on S.29(2) of Central Act, 1963.