Judgment.-This second appeal raises a point about limitation in regard to a suit for goods sold and delivered. The suit was filed in the District Munsif’s Court, Pondicherry. It was dismissed as time-barred under the Limitation Act, 1963 (Central Act XXXVI of 1963) . The District Court, on appeal, took the same view. Before the District Court the plaintiff contended that the question of limitation in relation to his suit was governed not by Central Act, XXXVI of 1963, but by the French Civil Code. It was further contended that the suit was within time under that Code. But these contentions were rejected.

2. The question in this second appeal is: which is the appropriate limitation law applicable to this suit? Central Act XXXVI of 1963 or the French Civil Code?

3. A few further facts may be mentioned. The plaintiff is a maligai merchant in Pondicherry. He based his suit claim against the defendant on a sale bill dated 24th January, 1967 in respect of goods sold by him on credit to the defendants. The suit was filed on 23rd June, 1971. The plaintiff pleaded that the suit was within time. He relied on an esdorsement of part-payment dated 25th June, 1968 stated to be in the defendant’s handwriting. The defendant resisted the suit, pleading that it was time-barred. He denied the alleged endorsement of 25th June, 1968. The Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry, who tried the suit, upheld the defendant’s plea in bar and dismissed the suit. His findings as to the bar of limitation were confirmed in appeal by the learned Principal District Judge, Pondicherry. Before him, for the first time, the plaintiff put forward the submission that the question of limitation must be considered under the French Civil Cede and not under Central Act XXXVI of 1963. This contention was also rejected. The learned District Judge held that the French Civil Code stood repealed by Central Act XXXVI of 1963 and the Code could not be invoked in respect of suits, like the present one, filed subsequent to 1st January, 1964. The correctness of this decision is now challenged in this second appeal.

4. Mr. Masilamani, appearing for the plaintiff, submitted that the provisions of the French Civil Code relating to limitation of actions are still in force in the territory of Pondicherry and they govern the present suit. He said that the Limitation Act, 1963 did not repeal the limitation provisions contained in the French Civil Code. According to him, the only law repealed by that Act was the earlier Indian Limitation Act, 1908, and he referred, in that connection, to section 32. He further submitted that far from repealing the limitation provisions enacted in the French Civil Code, Parliament actually saved those provisions. He relied for this argument on section 29 (2) of Central Act, 1963.

5. Mr. R. S. Venkatachari for the defendant contended that section 29 (2) cannot be invoked to save the articles of limitation laid down in the French Civil Code. He pointed out that the French law stood impliedly repealed the moment Central Act XXXVI of 1963 came into force, which was on 1st January, 1964. He said that the Parliamentary enactment extended to the whole of India. He said that, by that time, Pondicherry had already become part of India even on 16th August, 1962 under the Constitution Fourteenth Amendment. On this basis, he contended that for suits filed in Pondicherry after 1st January, 1964 the appropriate law in force relating to limitation would be the Limitation Act, 1963 and not the French Civil Code.

6. The Limitation Act, 1963, as its preamble indicates, was enacted to consolidate and amend the law in this country relating to limitation of suits. Under section 1 (2), the Act extended to the whole of India. It seems to me, however, that from this provision alone I should not proceed to conclude that the provisions of the Act are intended to apply without any savings or exceptions whatever. Section 1 (2), itself, for instance, expressly excludes Jammu and Kashmir f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document