DEBENDRA NATH ROY Vs. KARTIC PRASAD DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In my opinion this rule must be discharged. It appears that the suit was on a bond. The due. date of the bond was in October 1918, and no payment of interest was made within three years. Rs. 101 was paid some 12 days after the expiration of three years from the date limited for payment. The date on which Rs. 101 was paid was 31 October and that at that time it is said that the Court was closed, the plaintiff being in a position that he would be in time to sue if he brought his suit on the reopening day. He did not bring any suit on the reopening day, but in the meantime he took this payment of Rs. 101 and the question now arises whether that payment of interest has saved limitation under Section 20, Lim. Act.

(2.) It is suggested and it may quite well be true -- that but for the payment of the Rs. 101 the plaintiff would have brought a suit on the reopening day; but when one comes to consider this matter one must do it according to the strict principles which govern limitation. It is quite obvious that the plaintiff could, if he liked, have refused to take Rs. 101, have-brought his suit and then settled it by a. separate agreement or he might have made-a separate agreement without bringing his suit at all. All sorts of different things-the plaintiff could have done to keep himself right. I am only concerned with the-question whether by taking Rs. 101 for interest at that time, after three years-had expired, he did save limitation. Upon that it seems to me that on the face of the Limitation Act there can be no-doubt at all.

(3.) If ones looks at Section 3, one finds that U provides that: subject to the provisions contained in Secs.4 to 25 inclusive, every suit instituted after the period of limitation prescribed therefor by the first schedule shall be dismissed.