The judgment established the distinction between a period of limitation and a condition precedent, and the legislative intent behind the provisions of the Mysore Insolvency Act and the Mysore General Clauses Act.

( 1 ) THIS appeal raises an intesting question of law which by no means is free from difficulty.

( 2 ) THE appellants, as petitioners applied to the learned District Judge, Shimoga, in Insolvency case No. 1 of 1953 to adjudge the first respondent debtrtor as an insolvent. The act of insolvency on which the petition in grounded is said to have taken place on 16-2-1953. The petition was presented on 18-5-1953, i. e. on the day when the Court reopened after the summer recess. The court below has dismissed the petition on two grounds. The first ground on which the petition was dismissed is that the petition was filed under Section 13 of the Provincial Insolvency Act and not under Section 13 of the Mysore Insolvency Act. There is no dispute that on the date, the petition was presented, the law that was in force in the former State of Mysore was the Mysore insolvency Act (which shall be hereinafter referred to as the "act") and not the Provincial insolvency Act. The second ground on which the petition has been dismissed is that the act of insolvency on which it is grounded had occurred beyond three months before the presentation of the petition.

( 3 ) THE Court below was wholly wrong in rejecting the petition on the ground that a wrong provision of law had been quoted therein. Our attention has been invited to I. A. No. 13 filed by the petitioners seeking to amend the petition by showing the correct provision of law. No order at all has been passed on that application. If the provision of law mentioned in the petition is not correct, as admittedly it is not, the Court should have got it corrected and should not have dismissed the petition on that ground.

( 4 ) WHEN we come to the second ground on which the petition has been dismissed, we encounter sharp conflict of judicial opinion. According to the petitioners, Section 9 1) (c) of the "act", which is in the same terms as S. 9 (1) (c) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, prescribes a period of limitation and therefore, they can take benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act. It is alternatively urged that if Section 4 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the facts of the case, then the petitioners could have the benefit of Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act and, in either case, the petition presented on the reopening day is a validly presented petition.

( 5 ) TWO questions that arise for decision in this case are: (1) Whether the period mentioned in S. 9 (1) (c) is a period of limitation and 2) whether the presentation of the petition can be considered as an 'act' or 'proceeding' 'directed' or 'allowed' to be done or taken in any Court or office on a certain day within a prescribed period as provided in Section 10 of the General Clauses Act.

( 6 ) THE expression "limitation" is nowhere defined. Whether the period prescribed under an enactment is a period of limitation or a condition precedent has to be decided by taking into consideration the language employed, the scheme of the Act, the object to be achieved etc. , while it should not be forgotten that " limitation" is also a "condition", the distinction between a period of limitation and a condition though fine, is yet clear. A "condition precedent" is a part of a cause of action, whereas a :limitation" is a supervening factor. In the case of the former, there is no cause of action, unless the condition is fulfilled. In the case of the latter, the cause of action that has arisen is made unenforceable because of the lapse of the time prescribed. To put it differently, a condition precedent is a constituent part of the act complained of, whereas "limitation" has only relationship with the remedy allowed under the "act", limitation does not touch the cause but bars the remedy.

( 7 ) ACTS of insolvency are enumerated in Section 6 of the "act. Section 7 says:

"subject to the conditions in this Act, if a debtor commits an act of insolvency, an insolvency petition may be presented either by a creditor or by