COOPPOUSAMY Vs. ALAMELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF in O.S.No. 135 of 1979 on the file of First Additional Sub Judge, Pondicherry is the petitioner herein. An EX PARTE decree was passed on 27.1.1981 and defendants filed I.A.No. 824 of 1981 to condone the delay of 46 days under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act in filing the petition to set aside the EX PARTE decree and I.A.No. 825 of 1981 was filed to set aside the ex parte decree dated 27.1.1981.

(2.) THE trial Court set aside the EX PARTE decree and thereupon, plaintiff preferred C.R.P.No. 4555 of 1981, and it was contended that as defendants had withdrawn I.A.No.824 of 1981. I.A.No.825 of 1981 should have been automatically dismissed whereas it was contended by defendants that I.A.No.824of 1981 was withdrawn on a suggestion made by the Court that such an application was hot necessary in accord with the law of limitation applicable to Union Territory of Pondicherry.

(3.) MR.R.S. Venkatachari, learned counsel for the plaintiff, submits that the said decisions referred to by the Court below are unsound and do not take into account the legal concept of applicability of laws made in India to the Union Territory of Pondicherry from the time of its defects merger and the suit having been filed in 1979, after C.P.C. having been made applicable, no provision of the French Code Civil could be operative, and that the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 being a procedural enactment, a Civil Court adopting the procedures laid down in the C.P.C. cannot, . but implement the provisions of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. To substantiate these contentions, he would first refer to DE FACTO Agreement dated 21st October, 1954, which states,