Matter referred to the Bench due to expressing conflicting views.

SATHIADEV, J. :- Defendant in an unregistered suit (S.R.No. 43243 of 1979) on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Vridhachalam, is the petitioner herein. Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2600 being the one-half of the principal and interest due on a promissory note dt. 2-6-1974, executed by the defendant for Rs. 4000, payable with interest at 6 per cent per annum, Plaintiff filed O.S.738 of 1979 in the same court for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2514 towards one-half of the principal and interest due on the above promissory note under Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978, then in force, and got a decree on 20-6-1979. The said decree had not been executed and satisfied in full. After coming into force of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979, he has filed the present suit for recovery of the amount, which is permissible under Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979. Learned District Munsif by order dt. 30-9-1980 held that the plaintiff could file only one suit, on the basis of one cause of action, and as it had been already exhausted in the previous suit in O.S. 738 of 1979, he cannot maintain a second suit, and hence rejected the plaint.

2. Plaintiff preferred A.S. 92 of 1980 before the Sub-Court, Chidambaram, which was later on taken on the file of the Sub Court, Vriddhachalam, as A.S.153 of 1981 Learned Sub Judge held that, before coming into force of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979, plaintiff would not have been entitled to the balance of the amount; and, therefore, on 15-7-1978, when Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979 was ushered in, that itself gave the necessary came of action in the filing of the present suit, and, therefore he allowed the appeal and directed the trial court to take up the plaint on its file and dispose it of according to law. It is against the said decision, this revision petition is preferred claiming that the present suit filed is not maintainable.

3. When the revision petition was taken up for hearing on 24-7-1986, learned Judge, after referring to the conflicting views expressed in more than one judgment of this court, had referred the matter for being decided by a Division Bench for the reasons stated in the order.

4. Mr. N. Vanthinathan, learned counsel for defendant, submits that in respect of a promissory note, there could be only one cause of action and a suit having been already instituted and a decree obtained thereon, based on S.7(2)(i) of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978, the debt due under the promissory note for the balance of the amount having been held in law as wholly discharged, there was no debt available for being proceeded against under Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979. In spite of repeal of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978, under Sec.31 of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979, except for S.29 thereof, nothing in law survives to be proceeded against under Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979, and there being no cause of action existing, the present suit filed on a non-existing debt is not maintainable, and, when a portion of the debt statutorily having been declared as deemed to have been wholly discharged under Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979, and, there being no specific provision made to create debts in favour of creditors, based on the original promissory note, mere, repealing of Act 40 of 1978 had not resulted in bringing into existence a debt which had been wiped out under a prior enactment. Plaintiff having availed of the benefits under the earlier enactment, and subjected himself to the restraint contained therein and having thereby lost is right to the portion of the amount now claimed, repealing of the earlier enactment has not resulted in restoration of this scaled down debt. No reservation having been ever made in the earlier suit for the amount which could not be then sued, plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit. In any event, a statutorily wiped out deb consequent to plaintiff availing of remedy under the earlier enactment, cannot be claimed under Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979, which had nowhere provided for revival of