1. The facts that led to the Civil Revision Petition may be briefly stated. The respondent executed a promissory note on 10th November 1955 in favour of the petitioner. No amount was paid towards the debt; and ultimately on 7th July 1959 the petitioner filed A.R.P. No. 31 of 1959 before the primary court under S.4 and 8 of Kerala Act XXXI of 1958, for fixing the instalments payable under the Act and for an executable order for the recovery of such instalments. The respondent-debtor claimed that the debt was barred by limitation, which was accepted by both the lower courts. The petitioner creditor questions in revision the legality of that order. Mr. Krishnamurthy Iyer on behalf of the petitioner contends firstly, that there is no provision in the Limitation Act which applies to an application under S.8 of Act XXXI of 1958, and secondly, that even if a suit on the promissory note is barred, it is only the remedy by way of suit that is barred and not the right, and if the right can be enforced in any other manner the law does not prohibit the same.

2. The Act does not appear to prohibit generally the application of the law of limitation under the Indian Limitation Act to p