A question of limitation is involved in these two Civil Revision Petitions.

The petitioner as plaintiff instituted two small causes suits against the two respondents who had executed promissory notes to him, one on 8th July, 1952, and the other on 9th August, 1952. Both the suits were filed on 4th June, 1957 and in order to escape the bar of limitation reliance was placed upon the provisions of Madras Act V of 1954 and Act I 6f 1955. The combined effect of these two Acts were to extend the period of limitation for a period of 1 year, 1 month and 26 days. The suits were not laid even within this extended period. The District Munsif dismissed both the suits on the ground of limitation.

The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under section 4 of Act I of 1955, the debt became payable in instalments and consequently the Article of the Limitation Act applicable to this case would be Article 74 and not Article 73. Section 4 (1) of Act I of 1955 enacts:

“ Notwithstanding any law, custom, contract or decree of Court to the contrary, an agriculturist shall be entitled to pay within four months of the commencement of this Act, the interest due on any debt due by