LALCHAND Vs. LABURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question raised in this revision is one of limitation. That depends upon the interpretation of Sec. 4 (a) of the Marwar Limitation (Amendment Act, 1949 (No. XXXII of 1949 ). That section is as follows : - 4. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act : - (a) Any suit or application for the execution of a decree which would be barred under the provisions of this Act may be instituted or made, as the case may be, within three years next after the commencement of this Act or within the period of limitation previously in force, whichever period expires first. THE meaning of Sec. 4 (a) which is sought to be applied is in my opinion, quite clear. THE section lays down that if on the date that Act came into force, the suit was barred under it the grace allowed by Sec. 4 (a) could be taken advantage of by the person filing the suit. This grace consisted of a period of three years from the date of commencement of the Act or the original period of limitation which ever expired first. Learned counsel wants to emphasize the words would be and his contention is that the words 'would be' here do not mean 'is'. To my mind, it is quite clear that the words 'would be' as used in this section clearly mean 'is' and the intention is that if the suit is barred under that Act on the date on which it came into force, the period of grace could be taken advantage of. But if the suit is not barred under that Act on the date on which it came into force, the period of limitation would be the period fixed by that Act. It is enough to say that no litigant has any vested right in a period of limitation and the law applicable is the law on the law on the date of the suit. In this case the cause of action accrued on the 16th of November, 1948 and when the Marwar Amendment Act came into force on the 27th March 1949, the suit was not barred under its provisions, and could still be filed upto 16th of November, 1951. THErefore, the applicant was not entitled to the period of grace provided in Sec. 4 (a) and the suit had to be filed up to 16th of November, 1951. It was actually filed on 24th January 1952 when Rajasthan Limitation Act, Adaptation Ordinance, No. VI of 1950 was in force. That Ordinance however made no difference to the period of limitation in this case as the period prescribed under the Rajasthan Ordinance was the same as under the Marwar Amendment Act. THE suit was therefore barred by time on 24th of January, 1952. THEre is no force in this revision and it is hereby dismissed. .