( 1 ) THE suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted on the foot of a promissory note dated 26-12-1949 executed in favour of Palla Kundaraju, the father of the appellants 1 to 5 and the husband of the 6th appellant. The suit was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge on several grounds. But in our opinion, it is sufficient to deal with two of them because if the view of the lower court on either of them is right, this appeal must fail. Both the points arise from the fact that this suit which was instituted on 30-11-1954 is obviously barred by limitation. The contention on behalf of the plaintiffs is that if the time which was occupied in certain proceedings which were taken by Kundaraju before a French Court at Yanam on the basis of the suit promissory note were excluded under Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, then the suit would be in time. The respondent contends that that section does not apply to the facts of this case for two reasons; Firstly, because the said proceedings were pending not in a Court in India to which only Section 14 must be held to refer but in a foreign territory; (Yanam was at the material time part of French India); secondly, because eve

Click Here to Read the rest of this document