Judgment.-The plaintiff, Goodman and Company, by its proprietor Mallikeswaran has filed this revision petition against the judgment of the Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry, dismissing the plaintiff’s suit against Thirunavukarasu, the respondent herein, with costs.

2. The suit itself was filed for recovery of possession of a radio set from the defendant, or in the alternative, for recovery of Rs. 450 being the value thereof. The case of the plaintiff was that in the month of July, 1965, the defendant came to the plaintiff’s company for the purchase of a radio set. The plaintiff was willing to sell the plaint schedule radio set to the defendant, but the defendant said he would observe the functioning of the radio set for 2 or 3 days and if he was satisfied with the quality of the set, he would pay for the same. But the defendant neither paid the money nor returned the radio set. The suit itself was filed on 23rd February, 1971. The defendant denied the plaint allegation and said that the radio had been gifted to him in 1965 for the services rendered by him to the plaintiff’s company.He also contended that the plaintiff’s claim was barred by limitation.

3. The Court below, relying upon Articles 14 and 68 of the Indian Limita-tion Act of 1963, held that the suit not having been filed within three years, was barred by time.

4. It is against this judgment, the plaintiff has preferred this revision petition. As some important questions of law are in volved in this case, I directed notice to issue to the Government Pleader, Pondicherry as well as to the Standing Counsel for the Central Government, Mr. K. Parasaran.

5. Mr. Parasaran appeared and argued the questions of law with his usual thoroughness. The main question that arises for consideration is whether the period of limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act, 1963, applies to the facts of this case, or that prescribed by the Code Civil. The suit dealing took place in July, 1965. The de jure merger of the erstwhile French Indian territory took place on 16th August, 1962. Under section 4 of the Pondicherry (Administration.) Act, 1962 which came into force on 6th December, 1962, it was provided as follows:

“(1) All laws in force immediately before the appointed day in the former French Establishments or any part thereof shall continue to be in force in Pondicherry until amended or repealed by a competent Legislature or other competent authority.

(‘Appointed day’ has been defined in section 2 (b) of the Act to mean the 16th day of August, 1962, being the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Cession between India and France.)”

There is a proviso to clause (1) of section 4 which says that references in any such law to the President or Government of the French Republic shall be construed as references to the Central Government, references to the Governor of the French Establishments in India, to the Commissioner of the Republic for the French Establishments in India, to the Chief Commissioner for the French Establishments, to the Chief Commissioner of the State of Pondicherry or to the Chief Commissioner, Pondicherry, shall be construed as references to the Administrator of Pondicherry and references to the State of Pondicherry shall be construed as references to Pondicherry. Clause (2) of section 4 of the Pondicherry (Administration) Act prescribes that for the purpose of facilitating the application of any such law in relation to the administration of Pondicherry and for the purpose of bringing the provisions of any such law into accord with the provisions of the Constitution, the Central Government may, within three years from the appointed day, by order, make such adaptations and modifications, whether by way of repeal or amendment, as may be necessary or expedient, and thereupon every such law shall have effect subject to the adaptations and modifications so made. By the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which came into force on 28th December,1962, in the First Schedu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document