(1.) This appeal raises an interesting question of law. The Appellant is the widow of one Baranashi Kumar Ghose. The latter died sometime towards the end of November, 1947. Prior to his death, he borrowed Rs. 1,000 from the Respondent on a handnote, dated June 22, 1945. This loan has remained unpaid and it is this loan which is the subject-matter of the present suit.
(2.) On January 26, 1948, the Respondent instituted a suit' (Money Suit No. 2 of 1948) for recovery of his dues on the said handnote. At the time of institution of the suit the Plaintiff (Respondent) was unaware of Baranashi's death and he brought the suit against Baranashi. Eventually, however, on April 7, 1948, that suit was struck off by the court when it was found from the peon's report that Baranashi had died prior to its institution. Thereafter, on September 2, 1948, the present suit was instituted against the Defendant-Appellant who is Baranashi's widow and his sole heiress and legal representative. This suit was prima facie time-barred as it was instituted beyond the statutory period of three years as provided in the relevant article (Article 57 or 59) of the Indian Limitation Act. The Plaintiff, however, claimed the benefit of Section 14 of the Act for saving the suit from the bar of limitation.
(3.) There is no dispute that, if, in the computation of the period of limitation, the time, during which the previous unsuccessful suit (Money Suit No. 2 of 1948) remained pending, be excluded or deducted, the present suit would be well within time. But the question is whether the Plaintiff is entitled to such exclusion or deduction.