SHIVPRASAD AND OTHERS Vs. RAGHUNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts between the parties are not in dispute, in that the present appellants' predecessor had filed a suit on Sept. 1, 1961, on the basis of a pronote of July 2, 1958 for a consideration of Rs. 200. It is further not in dispute that the total liability of the defendant under that pronote is to the tune of Rs. 236.

(2.) The only question on which the plaintiff has been non-suited is the bar of limitation. The first Court as well as the appellate Court found against the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed to exclude the period of four months and 20 days by invoking the provisions of section 6 of the Bombay Execution of Decrees (Temporary Postponement) Act, 1959, hereinafter called the Act. It is not in dispute that parties were agriculturists governed by the provisions of the Act and further that under the said Act there was an effective notification from Aug. 2, 1960 to Dec. 22, 1960, declaring the village in which the parties reside, as the scarcity area. By the notification dated 22-12-1960 published in the Gazette of Jan. 12, 1961, the earlier notification making a declaration of scarcity was withdrawn. Both these notifications are referable to the power conferred upon the State Government under section 1 of the said Act.

(3.) Sec. 6(1) of the said Act reads as follows: