IMPORTANT POINT
The Limitation Act, 1963 (and not French Code Civil) applies to the Union Territory of Pondicherry.

JUDGMENT

K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. We are, in this appeal, concerned with the applicability of the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1956, vis-à-vis, Article 2262 of the French Code Civil, said to be the governing law of limitation in the Union Territory of Pondicherry, erstwhile French Establishment.

3. Appellant herein preferred a suit, being OS No. 295 of 1991 before the Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry. The suit was resisted, inter alia, on the ground of limitation, which was ultimately decreed in favour of the plaintiff. However, on the plea of limitation, the trial Court held as follows: "12. On Issue No. 3: - Article 2262 of French Code Civil shows that the limitation for original cause of action is thirty years and it is a well settled law that the said provision is applicable to the Union Territory - Pondicherry. Accordingly, suit claim is not time barred. Hence this issue is answered in the negative and in favour of the plaintiff."

4. Defendant took up the matter in appeal before the IInd Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, but the judgment/decree of the trial Court dated 25.11.1994 was confirmed. The matter was carried in appeal to the High Court by filing Second Appeal No. 383 of 2010. Following substantial questions of law were framed by the High Court:

1. "Whether the lower appellate Court has committed an error in law in pronouncing a Judgment without considering and answering the question regarding readiness and willingness on the part of the respondent/plaintiff to perform his part of the contract?

2. Whether the lower appellate Court has committed an error in not adverting to the issue regarding limitation when the same has been specifically raised in the trial Court and also in the grounds of appeal?

3. Whether the Courts below have erroneously held that the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to the case?"

5. The question of limitation was the primary issue which was raised before the High Court. It was submitted that provisions of the Indian Limitation Act govern the law of limitation, so far as the Union Territory of Pondicherry is concerned and not Article 2262 of the French Code Civil. Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Syndicate Bank v. Prabha D. Naik and Another (2001) 4 SCC 713, which dealt with the applicability of the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, vis-à-vis, Article 535 of the Portuguese Civil Code in the Union Territory of Goa,

Daman and Diu, the High Court took the view that it is Article 54 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 that would apply in the matter of filing of the suit in Pondicherry and not Article 2262 of the French Code Civil. Consequently, it was found that the suit filed for specific performance of the contract, was not saved by Article 54 of the Indian Limitation Act which provided that the suit be filed within three years of the date of agreement. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was reversed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal.

6. Shri R. Nedumaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the High Court was not justified in reversing the concurrent finding arrived at by the trial Court without examining the other two substantial questions of law framed by the High Court. Learned counsel also submitted that the concurrent finding of facts ought not have been reversed by the High Court, placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Syndicate Bank (supra). That was a case where this Court was examining the scope of the Limitation Act, vis-à- vis, the Portuguese Civil Code and not the provisions of the French Code Civil, which is one applicable to the present case.

7. Shri V. Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the ratio of the decision in Syndicate Bank (supra) would squarely apply to the facts of the present case and the provisions are pari materia and the High Court has rightly held tha