BADRI PRASAD Vs. RAM NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the Small Cause Court Judge at Benares under Order 46, Rule 1, Civil P.C. The suit was instituted on 29 April 1938 against a certain person who was presumably an agriculturist upon the foot of a promissory note. The promissory note was executed on 20 January 1935 and the period of limitation under the provisions of the Limitation Act had expired on 20 January 1938; but the plaintiff contended that the suit was within time by reason of the provisions of Section 5, Local Act No. 10 of 1937. Section 5(1) of the Act reads as follows: (1) In computing the period of limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act, 1908, or any other law for this time being in force, for (a) the institution of a suit in a Civil Court against an agriculturist for money or for foreclosure or sale in enforcement of a mortgage, and (b) the execution of such decree as is referred to in Section 3, and not covered by Section 6, the period during which this Act shall remain in force, shall be excluded.

(2.) The learned Judge considered the Preamble of the Act and having regard to the fact that all the Secs.of the Act except Section 5 are concerned exclusively with matters relating to the execution of decrees he observes: ...as the Act itself is not applicable to suits against agriculturists, the provision about stay of suits appears to be outside the scope of the Act and inconsistent with the tenor and spirit of the Act.

(3.) The Preamble of the Act is in the following terms: Whereas it is expedient to provide for the temporary postponement, pending further legislation for granting relief from indebtedness to agriculturists, of the execution of certain decrees passed against agriculturists by Civil Courts.