M R M RAMA PILLAI Vs. KASAMUTHU NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Revision Petition 1233 of 1927. One Vala Subramaniam Pillai was decree-holder in Small Cause Court Suit No. 661 of 1923 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin. The decree is dated 4 May 1923. The decree-holder Vala Subramania Pillai was subsequently adjudged insolvent on 21 January 1925 on an application filed on 22nd December 1924. It is said that a special receiver was appointed on 30th, March 1926. The outstandings including decrees due to Vala Subramania Pillai were sold in auction and the petitioner Rama Pillai became the purchaser on 12 June 1926, and the deed of assignment Ex. A, was executed in favour of Rama Pillai by the special receiver on 27 August 1926. Rama Pillai filed an application for execution of the decree in Small Cause Suit No. 661 of 1923 on 17 November 1926. This application has been dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge on the ground of limitation and it is against that order that Rama Pillai has filed this revision petition.

(2.) The decree sought to be executed being dated 4 May 1923, prima facie the application filed by the assignee decree-holder Rama Pillai on 17 November 1926 is barred by limitation. Before the lower Court the petitioner sought to get over the plea of limitation by contending that the effect of the adjudication of the original decree holder Vala Subramaniam Pillai was to prevent limitation from running and that the time between the adjudication and the date of the appointment of the special receiver should be deducted and that subsequently the execution application is not barred by limitation. The lower. Court disallowed that contention and held that the execution of the decree was barred by limitation. The learned advocate who appeared for the petitioner argued the case elaborately before me and contended that on a proper construction of Section 78, Pro. Ins. Act, it must he held that the execution application is not barred by limitation. He also contended that on general principles also, the period mentioned above should be deducted. He referred to me the observations of Bacon, C.J. in the case reported in ex parte Lancaster Banking Corporation, In re, Westy l0 Ch D 776 to the following effect: When a bankruptcy ensues there is an end to the operation of that statute, with reference to debtor and creditor. The debtor's rights are established and the creditor's rights are established in the bankruptcy and the Statute of Limitations has no application at all to such a case or to the principles by which it is governed.

(3.) He referred also, among others, to the cases reported in Baranashi V/s. Bhabadeb A.I.R. 1921 Cal. 456 and Sivasubramania V/s. Theethiappa A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 163.