RAJAMANI Vs. MEENAKSHISUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant who suffered a decree before the Court below has filed the above second appeal.

(2.) THE appellant/defendant borrowed 2000 Singapore dollars from one R. S. Sundaram at Singapore on 9. 11. 1975 promising to repay the same on demand to him or to his order with interest at 18% per annum and executed a promissory note therefor under Ex. A5. THE said Sundaram filed a case before the District and Magistrate Court, Singapore against the defendant but it was struck off. According to the plaintiff/respondent, the defendant continues to reside in Singapore and on 3. 7. 1979, under Ex. A1 the said promissory note was assigned in favour of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff issued a notice on 11. 7. 1979 intimating the said assignment in his favour and demanding the payment of the entire dues to him, from the defendant. Since the amount was not paid, the plaintiff filed the suit in O. S. No. 8 of 1980 on the file of the Sub-Court, Devakottai, which was re-transferred to the District Munsif Court, Devakottai and numbered as O. S. No. 37 of 1984, for recovery of the sum of Rs. 13, 885. 75 with subsequent interest on the principal sum of Rs. 6, 700. It is stated in the plaint that since the defendant has been and is absent from India, the whole of the period has to be excluded in computing limitation as provided for in Section 15 (5) of the Indian limitation Act read with Section 11 thereof with the result that the suit instituted is well within time. It is also stated that Ariyakudi is the permanent place of residence of the defendant, which is situated within the limits of the jurisdiction of District Munsif Court, Devakottai in which the suit was filed.

(3.) THE next question to be decided in the present appeal is, can the plaintiff take advantage of Section 15 (5) of the Indian Limitation act so as to enable him to file the suit against the defendant. In this case, the suit promissory note Ex. A5 was executed as early as on 9. 11. 1973 and it was assigned under Ex. A1 dated 3. 7. 1979. THE suit was filed on 29. 10. 1979. Admittedly, the suit can be sustained only if the protection given under section 15 (5) of the Limitation Act applies to this case.