Deenanath vs Sadashiv Jaikishan

Dixit J.

This is a revision petition by the Defendant against a decision of the Court of Small Causes, Lashkar decreeing the Plaintiff-non-applicant''s claim for Rs. 453/- besides costs and interest against the applicant.

The only question for determination in this revision petition is whether the Plaintiff''s suit filed of 1-7-1952 for the recovery of price of goods sold and delivered on 22-6-1949 within time. Ram Prakash Saxena learned Counsel for applicant contended that under the Gwalior State which was in force on 22-6-19 the Plaintiff could have filed his suit within, years of 22-6-1949; but that as on 17-7-1949 No. 40 of 1949 adapting the Indian Limitation Act 1908 came into force and as the period of limitation prescribed for suits such as the present if under the Gwalior Limitation Act was longer t the period of limitation prescribed under the adapted Indian Limitation Act, therefore, u/s 4(2) of the Adaptation Act the Plaintiff should have filed his sure within the period of two ye" next of 17-7-19411, the date on which the Adaption Act came into force. In other words, learned Counsel maintained that the Plaintiff should have filed his suit on or before 16-7-1951 and as it w filed on 1-7-1952 it was barred by time.

Mr. Wakankar learned Counsel for the of applicant on the other hand submitted that of Act No. 40 of 1949 had no applicability; (sic) the present case as the Plaintiff''s suit was, under Article 52 itself of the adapted Indian Limitation Act, within time. The argument was that mi Article 52 the limitation for the Plaintiff''s suit ex ed on 21-8-T952 and as on this day and un(sic) 30-6-1952 the Courts were closed for the sum vacation, the Plaintiff''s suit filed on the opening day that is, on 1-7-1952 was within time. Wakankar contended that the Plaintiff''s suit in fact governed by the Indian Limitation 1908 as extended to Madhya Bharat by the Part B States (Laws) Act 1951, which repealed Madhya Bharat Act, No. 40 of 1949 and brought into force the Indian Limitation Act, 1908,'' Madhya Bharat from 1-4-1951, with a new section namely Section 30 inserted in it; that u/s the Plaintiff could file his suit within t years of 1-4-1951; and that as the Plaintiff''s s" was instituted on 1-7-1952 it was clearly with time.

In my opinion the Plaintiff''s suit is governed by Article 52, Indian Limitation Act, 1908 extended to Madhya Bharat by the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951 (Act No. 3 of 1951) which c into force on 1-4-1951. By virtue of Section 6, Part of States (Laws) Act, 1951, the Madhya Bharat Indian Limitation (Adaptation Act) ceased to operative from 1-4-1951 and cannot, therefore govern the Plaintiff''s suit which was instituted: 1-4-1952. Section 30, Indian Limitation Act, 1 as extended by Act, No. 3 of 1951 has no applicability here for the simple reason that the limitation prescribed for a suit to recover the price of goods sold and delivered was the same un both the Indian Limitation Act 1908 as extended to this State by Act No. 3 of 1951 and under Madhya Bharat adapted Indian Limitation which Act No. 3 of 1951 repealed. The plain, suit is, therefore, clearly governed by Article under which the Plaintiff could tile his suit with three years of 22-6-1949. As this limitation expired during the vacation and the Plaintiff filed. suit on the opening day of the Court, it is with time.

Mr Ram Prakash Saxena drew my attention to a decision of Chaturvedi J. in - ''Mishril" Misirilal'', 1953 Madh. B.L.J. 754. (A), where learned Judge has made the following observation:

The object of Part B States (Laws) Act, (sic) (Act 3 of 1951) was only to extend the se important Central Acts to Part B States were not in force there. If a Central Act the Indian Limitation Act was already in any Part B States, the Part B States (Laws) Act 1951 cannot be taken to have repealed that Central Act there.

Relying on this decision Mr. Saxena said that u/s 4(2), Madhya Bharat Act No. 40 of (sic) the Plaintiff should have filed his suit with (sic) two years of 17-7-1949. I am unable to accept this contention. Assuming that the view taken Chaturvedi J., in the case referred to above is t and that the Madhya Bharat Act No. 40 1949 adapting the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 still in force in this state, 1 do not think the limitation for the Plaintiffs suit could be computet u/s 4(2) of that Act.

That section as is clear from its provision is the nature of a saving provision preserving is which would have been within time under repealed law but which if subjected to the Operation of the adapted Act would have become Jarred by time. IV can only apply to the se cases are the period of limitation as computed tender relevant article of the adapted Act expires on a date earlier than the date on which limitation as computed u/s 4(2) would expire. Where the last day of limitation under the article concerned is subsequent to the last day of limitation as computed u/s 4(2) of Act No. 40 of f 1949, then there is no matter to be saved on which the saving clause Section 4(2) could operate. Clearly the saving provision contained in Section 4(2) of Act 40 of 1949 cannot be construed in a manner repugnant to the body of the adapted Indian Limitation Act and so as to curtail the period of limitation available for a suit under the relevant article itself.

In the present case the goods having been dectered on 22-6-1949, the Plaintiff could under Article (sic) sue for the recovery of the price of the goods, any time until 21-7-1952. Section 4(2) cannot in my opinion be applied so as to reduce this period of limitation and require the Plaintiff that should have filed his suit on or before 16-7-1951 is within two years of the coming into force No. 40 of 1949. In my opinion, as Section 4(2) No. 40 of 1949 is not operative in the pre(sic) case and as Section 30, Indian Limitation Act as tended by Act No. 3 of 1951 also does not apply present case, the Plaintiff''s suit filed on is under both the Limitation Acts within(sic)

In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to consider whether the view taken by (sic) in -''1953 Madh. B.L.J. 754 (A)'', is , Were it necessary for me to express any on the matter, I would say with all res(sic) the learned Judge that the view is not consonance with the clear provisions of Section 6, States (Laws) Act 1951, and does not take ''(sic)the fact that the Indian Limitation Act, was not in force in this State before 1-4-1951 virtue of any Act of the Dominion Legislature adapted here by an Act of the Madhya Bharat Legislature. The Limitation Act which was force in Madhya Bharat before 1-4-1951 was in content and form the same as the Act now in force. Nonetheless it was (sic) adapted by Madhya Bharat Legislature one extended to this State by the Dominion Legislature.

For all these reasons I think the learned of the Court of Small Causes was right in that the Plaintiff''s suit was within time.