MUNGALAL HARPHAGAT AGARWAL Vs. MAKSUDDIN HUSNODDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff, Mungalal, whose suit for recovery of certain money, due on a pro-note, dated 14th December 1936 (EX. P-1) has been dismissed in both the Courts below.

(2.) THE facts which have given rise to this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff instituted this suit on the basis of the pro-note, Ex. P-1. He had a cause of action against the defendant on the date of the pro-note and he could have filed his suit within the legal period of limitation on or before 14th December 1989. The plaint in the suit was filed and registered on 2nd September 1941. The plaintiff's suit is prima facie time-barred, but his contention is that he is entitled to deduct the period that was occupied by the proceedings before the Debt Conciliation Board, Ellichpur, initiated on the application of the debtor-defendant. The defendant had applied to the Debt Conciliation Board on 20fch September 1937 for conciliation of his debt. The plaintiff was not agreeable to the scheme of conciliation recommended by the Debt Conciliation Board, whereas the other creditors had accepted it. On 3lst January 1938 the agreement was drawn up with reference to those creditors who had accepted the scheme of conciliation. The said agreement was later on sent for registration under Section 12(2), C.P. and Berar Debt Conciliation Act, 1933 (2 [II] of 1933), hereinafter described for lucidity as the Act.

(3.) IT is conceded by Mr. N.B. Chandurkar, the earned Counsel for the appellant, that his client's suit would not be within time, even if he were entitled to exclude the period between 20th September 1937, on which the plaintiff-appellant made the application before the Debt Conciliation Board, and the date 9th February 1938, upon which the agreement was registered.