Residuary Article 113 not applicable.

ORDER :- The defendant in O. S. No. 307 of 1982 on the file of the Court of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition, which is directed against the finding recorded by the Court below on the preliminary issue regarding limitation. That suit was laid by the respondent herein for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,860 with subsequent interest on the basis of a simple mortgage for Rs. 5000 executed by the petitioner on 21-5-1969 agreeing to repay the principal amount with interest at 12 per cent per annum. The suit was instituted on 28-6-1982. In the written statement filed by the petitioner, she raised a plea that the suit is barred by limitation and prayed for the dismissal of the suit. On that plea so raised by the petitioner an issue was framed regarding the bar of limitation and that issue was tried by the Court below as a preliminary issue. The Court below took tile view that as the provisions of French Code Civil would continue to apply, a longer period of limitation than that prescribed under the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, would be available in Pondicherry territory and that even if the claim under the mortgage had become barred in 1981 under Art.62 of the Limitation Act 1963, since the mortgage deed contained a personal covenant to pay the mortgage money, Art.113 of the Limitation Act 1963, would apply and the suit instituted on 28-6-1982, would still be in time. Accordingly, the preliminary issue relating to limitation was answered in favour of the respondent. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in this civil revision petition.

2. The principal question that arises for consideration is whether the suit instituted by the respondent on 28-6-1982 for the recovery of the amount due under the mortgage dated 21-5-1969 executed by the petitioner is in time. On the footing that the provisions of the Limitation Act 1963, would apply, the relevant Article applicable, would be Art. 62, which runs as under :

" 62 To enforce payment of money secured by a mortgage or otherwise charged upon immov-able property.

When the money sued for becomes due. Twelve years."

The language employed in the last column "when the money sued for becomes due" would depend upon the terms of instrument in each case and obviously refers to the point of time flowing from the contract between the parties as the date fixed for in the mortgage as the date by which the amount should be repaid. In paragraph III of the plaint, while giving details of the terms of the simple mortgage sued upon, the respondent has stated that the petitioner borrowed the sum of Rs. 5000 from him by executing a simple mortgage over certain properties

agreeing to repay the principal with interest at 12 per cent per annum within a period of three years. Therefore, as per the terms of the deed of mortgage between the parties, the date fixed for repayment was 21-5-1972 and it was on that date that the money sued for became due and the suit having been instituted on 28-6-1982 within 12 years from the date when the money became due. the suit would

be in time, even if Art.62 of the Limitation Act 1963 is applicable.

3. The matter may be looked at from another angle as well. After the de jure merger of the erstwhile French Indian Territory took place on 16-8-1962, under S.4 of the Pondicherry (Administration) Act 1962, which came into force on 6-12-1962, all the laws formerly in force in that territory were continued. In other words, the local law of limitation, which was in force in Pondicherry territory, continued to remain as such. Under S.3 (1) of the Limitation Act, subject to the provisions contained in Ss.4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence. S.32 of the Limitation Act 1963 repealed the Limitation Act 1908 and not any other law. In S.29 (2) of the Lim