The Indian Limitation Act, 1963 alone governs the parties in determining the period of limitation for filing a suit, thereby implying the repeal of other laws, such as the French Civil Code, in such matters.

(Second Appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 2.2.1994 in A.S.No. 4 of 1992 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikkal reversing the judgment and decree dated 15.11.1991 in O.S.No: 28 of 1991 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Karaikkal.)

The appellant is the defendant in O.S.No: 28 of 1991 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Karaikkal. The plaintiff filed a suit on the strength of the Promissory Note dated 7.9.1985 executed by the defendant for a sum of Rs.10, 000/= and the suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.16, 000/= with interest and cost. The suit was instituted on 24.1.1991. Apart from disputing certain facts, the defendant admitted execution of Ex.P.1, Promissory Note. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff filed the Appeal in A.S.No.4/92, which was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikkal. Hence the Second appeal.

2. At the time of admission, the following substantial Questions of law were framed by this Court: -

(i) Whether the lower appellate court has committed illegality in its judgment by solely resting its hand on Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by ignoring Illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act?

(ii) Whether the lower appellate court has erred in not considering the deposition of P.W.1 being the plaintiff in the actual background of the case?

(iii) Whether the defendant/appellant is not entitled to rebut the presumption raised under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by adducing direct and circumstantial evidence invoking Illustration 9g) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act?"

3. Before this Court, the appellant would urge that the suit has been filed beyond the period of Limitation i.e., after a period of 5 years 3 months 23 days from the date of execution of the Promissory Note namely, 2 years 23 months and 28 days beyond the period of Limitation.

4. The respondent/plaintiff would content that the Government of India has issued "French Establishments (Application of Laws) Order 1954" vide Notification dated 30.10.1954 by which the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been made applicable to the Union Territory of Pondicherry. Union Territory of Pondicherry has the French Civil Code and according to Art.2662 of the said Code, 30 years is the period of limitation for laying a suit for any action. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, the suit is within time.

5. A similar situation arose with regard to the question of applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 in the Union Territory of Goa, Diu and Daman with reference to Portuguese Civil Code in the case of Syndicate Bank Vs. Prabha D.Naik, reported in (2001) 4 SCC 713. In the said case, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have considered about the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu, whether the Portuguese Civil Code prescribes for 30 years duration for laying action. Their Lordships have held as follows: -

"22. Admittedly, the Limitation Act is a statute enacting the provisions in general terms applicable to the entire country excepting the exception as mentioned in the statute itself. It is a later statute of the year 1963 only that Portuguese Civil Code assuming had its application in the State of Goa, Daman and Diu and an earlier statute thus stands altered, as the latter is expressed in affirmative language, more so by reason of specific application of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Indian Contract Act: It thus cannot but be said to be repealing by implication — “affirmative statute introductive of a new law do imply a negative†(Harcourt v. Fox).

23. As regards the doctrine of implied repeal, another aspect of the matter ought to be noticed vis-Ã -vis the Civil Code. The issue of limitation being a mixed issue of law and fact under the Limitation Act, the court in spite of plea not being raised by the defence, can go into the same suo m