PURAN SINGH Vs. SANTA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of a sum of money alleged to be due on the basis of bond. The Defendant resisted the suit on two grounds, (1) that the amount had been paid off, and (2) that the suit was barred by time. The trial Judge found for the Defendant on both the points and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the District Judge set aside the decision of the trial Court on the question of limitation and remanded the case for re -decision on the question of payment, because he was of the view that opportunity had not been given to the Plaintiff to rebut the evidence that the Defendant had examined to prove payment. The Defendant is the Appellant before me.

(2.) THE parties belong to the erstwhile Kapurthala State and according to the law prevalent in that State limitation period for a suit for recovery of money on the basis of a bond was six years . When the Kapurthala State acceded to the Union of Patiala and East Punjab States, the Kapurthala limitation Act was

(3.) IT is laid down in Section 3 of the Ordinance that the "appointed day" means the 5th day of Bhadon 2005, and relying upon this, the Appellant's counsel argued that the suit should have been instituted by 5th Bhadon 2006. So far as the applicability of the Ordinance is concerned there is no difference between the parties' counsel and the counsel for the Plaintiff respondent admits that the last day of limitation for the suit was 5th Bhadon 2006, but he maintains that since 5th and 6th Bhadon 2000 were public holidays, the suit could properly be instituted on the 7th Bhadon 2006 by virtue of Section 4, Bhupindra Oudh Sunai Act, taken together with Section 29.