Skip to content


P. Narayana Moopanar Vs. R. Viswasa Nadar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1958)2MLJ491
AppellantP. Narayana Moopanar
RespondentR. Viswasa Nadar
Excerpt:
- - 3. it is argued in this court that the total period of stay which was granted by the said ordinance and acts which comes to one year, six months and twenty-six days should be computed from ist july, 1955. 4. like the learned district munsif i am unable to find out any real basis for such a preposterous computation......one year, six months and twenty-six days. the i said stay came to an end by 30th june, 1955. the suit was filed on 25th january, 1956.the lower court came to the conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation. i hence this revision.3. it is argued in this court that the total period of stay which was granted by the said ordinance and acts which comes to one year, six months and twenty-six days should be computed from ist july, 1955.4. like the learned district munsif i am unable to find out any real basis for such a preposterous computation. section 3 of the act says that no suit for recovery of a debt shall be instituted against any agriculturist in any civil court before the expiry of four months from the commencement of this act. section 8 says that in computing a period of.....
Judgment:

Ramaswami, J.

1. These are two connected Civil Revision Petitions in which the sarne point of law is raised.

2. I shall first take up C.R.P. No. 1543 of 1956 which relates to a suit based upon a promissory note, dated 16th December, 1950. Ordinarily the time fixed under the Limitation Act for filing a suit thereon would expire by 16th December, 1953. But on account of the Madras Ordinance V of 1953 and Madras Acts V of 1954 and I of 1955 the suit could not be filed before the expiry of four months from the commencement of Act I of 1955 which received the assent of the President on 24th February, '1955 and was published in the Fort St. George Gazette, Extraordinary, on the ist March, 1955. The total period of stay which was granted under the 1 said Ordinance and Acts comes to one year, six months and twenty-six days. The I said stay came to an end by 30th June, 1955. The suit was filed on 25th January, 1956.

The lower Court came to the conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation. I Hence this Revision.

3. It is argued in this Court that the total period of stay which was granted by the said Ordinance and Acts which comes to one year, six months and twenty-six days should be computed from ist July, 1955.

4. Like the learned District Munsif I am unable to find out any real basis for such a preposterous computation. Section 3 of the Act says that no suit for recovery of a debt shall be instituted against any agriculturist in any civil Court before the expiry of four months from the commencement of this Act. Section 8 says that in computing a period of limitation for a suit for recovery of a debt the time during which the institution of the suit was barred under Section 3 shall be excluded. In this case there was no legal impediment to file a suit on 16th December, 1953, but it could not be instituted by reason of the total period of stay which was granted under the said Ordinance and Acts till 30th June, 1955. This period of one year, six months and twenty-six days has got to be excluded in computing the period of limitation. In other words the plaintiff can file a suit on the suit promissory note within one year, six months and twenty-six days from 16th December, 1953, viz-, on or before 12th July, 1955. But this suit has been filed on 25th January, 1956 which is plainly barred by limitation. The decision of the lower Court is correct and the Revision has got to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

5. On the same principles C.R.P. No. 1596 of 1956 has got to be dismissed. In this case the suit was based on a promissory note, dated 14th January, 1951. Ordinarily the suit should have been filed on 14th January, 1954. But it could only be filed after the expiry of the stay under the Ordinance and the Acts on 30th June, 1955. The plaintiff is entitled to exclude in computing the period of limitation a period of one year, six months and twenty-six days. In other words, instead of filing the suit on or before 14th January, 1954 he could file the suit on or before 10th August, 1955. But he filed the suit actually on 17th January, 1956. Therefore this Revision also is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //