M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application filed by the official liquidator claiming from respondent-zahoor hassan a sum of Rs. 13,756/- together with current interest, pendentelite. Objections have been filed today, though it has not yet formed part of the records. In the copy with the counsel for respondent, it is admitted that the respondent was a member of the union chit funds, a unit of the unico trading and chit funds (india) private limited, the company in liquidation. He has further admitted that he had chit transactions with the company in liquidation and that he had subscribed upto the 7th instalment in group nci chit at Nagpur branch.

( 2 ) THE official liquidator has examined one of the office assistants as p. W. 1 and got marked as many as six documents. They are; the proforma plaint which was permitted to be filed by an order of this court in such form having regard to the large number of claim petitions which were required to be filed before they came to be barred by limitation; ex. P. 2-the debit voucher debitting Rs. 10,000/- to the account of the respondent; ex. P. 3-the chit amount payment slip which shows that the subscriber was due in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-; ex. P. 4-an on demand pronote executed for a sum of Rs. 8,600/- only deducting the amounts he had subscribed; ex. P. 5-the consideration receipt. It may be noticed that exs. P. 4 and p. 5 are not dated. Ex. P. 6 is the report of the manager of the branch i. e. , the union chit funds, submitted to the head office of the company in liquidation. In the light of the admission that he was a member of the chit group and was a subscriber and was the successful bidder of one of such chit, the documents produced loose some of their relevance.

( 3 ) ON the other hand, the only point urged by the respondent is that the claim is barred by limitation. It is contended by Mr. T. s. mohammed ali, learned counsel, that the pronote transaction took place as far back as 6-2-1974 and therefore that claim application filed on 30-1-1981 was clearly barred by limitation. He says that the maximum period which the official liquidator may claim is the additional one year which is permissible under Section 458-a of the Companies Act, 1956 and even then it would be beyond four years if one has regard to date of transaction namely, 31-1-1974. Undoubtedly, the above argument is founded on the principle that the suit on a pronote or suit for recovery of money is the mode adopted by the official liquidator. It is not really so as held by me in the case of unico trading and chit funds india (p) ltd. In liquidation by official liquidator v s. h. lohati and others, 1981 (2) Karnataka law journal 144. The claim petition by the official liquidator is a special proceeding by which the official liquidator is empowered to sue all debtors of the company in liquidation. By operation of law, the moment the winding up petition is filed, which, in the instant case was on 3-10-1975, the period of limitation against the company in liquidation stops running and is revived only after the winding up order is made. In other words, if on the date of the presentation of the winding up petition the debt was enforceable then the official liquidator may enforce the payment of the debt by virtue of the winding up order and not by virtue of the cause of action the company in liquidation had against the subscriber. Therefore, this being a special proceeding not being a suit for recovery of money, it is covered by residuary article 137 of the Limitation Act. See unico trading v s. h. lohati, decided on 20th march, 1981; 1981 (2) Karnataka law journal 144. The right to sue accrues only after the winding up order is made. Therefore, he has three years' time plus one year under Section 458-a of the act to sue the debtors. Therefore, the petition filed on 30th january, 1981 is well within that four years' period as the debt was alive qn the date of presentation of the winding up petition. 3. In the resu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document