The period of limitation for an application by an agriculturist judgment-debtor when a decree is being executed against him is fixed by Section 20 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, and there is no period of limitation in ordinary circumstances except in the circumstances contemplated by Section 20.

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. 1. A decree having been passed against the petitioners, the decree-holder applied for execution to the Court of the District Munsif, Thiruvarur. The petitioners then applied for a stay under the provisions of Section 20 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938, in order that they might prefer an application under Section 19 to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Thiruvarur, for the scaling down of the debt. On the 11th April, 1938, the District Munsif granted a stay. Section 20 contains the following proviso:

Provided that where within sixty days after the application for stay has been granted the judgment-debtor does not apply to the Court which passed the decree for relief under Section 19 or where an application has been so made and is rejected, the decree shall be executed as it stands, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act to the contrary.

2. The petitioners had therefore sixty days in which to apply to the Subordinate Judge. The Court of the Subordinate Judge closed for the summer vacation in the third week of April, 1938 and did not reopen until the 20th June, 1938. As the result of the Court being closed the petitioners were not in a position to file the application for a period of eight weeks, but filed it on the reopening day, that is, seventy days after the stay order had been passed. The petitioners, however, contended that they were within time and relied on Section 4 of the Limitation Act. The Subordinate Judge refused to accept this argument and formed the opinion that the filing of the application within sixty days of the stay order was a condition precedent to their right to apply to the Court for relief. He considered that the decision in Chenchuramana Reddi v. Arunachalam (1935)69MLJ283 applied. On this reasoning the petition was dismissed. The petitioners have applied to this Court for revision of the Subordinate Judges order.

3. The scheme of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act is to provide for the scaling down of debts due by agriculturists. Section 7 of the Act states that notwithstanding any law, custom, contract or decree of Court to the contrary, all debts payable by an agriculturist at the commencement of the Act, shall be scaled down in accordance with the provisions of Chapter II. Section 19 provides for the scaling down of debts due under decrees passed before the commencement of the Act. Where a Court has passed a decree for the repayment of a debt it shall on the application of a judgment-debtor who is an agriculturist apply the provisions of the Act notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, and amend the decree in accordance with the Act or enter up satisfaction as the case may be. By virtue of Section 20, a Court is bound to stay execution proceedings against an agriculturist on application made by him. I have already referred to the proviso to this section, which gives him sixty days in which to make an application to the trial Court for scaling down the debt. If the proviso to Section 20 can be read as fixing a period of limitation there can be no doubt that the application here was filed in time.

4. Section 29 of the Limitation Act applies inter alia Section 4 to a special or local law unless such law expressly excludes Section 4. Section 4 states that where the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the Court is closed, the suit, appeal or application may be instituted, preferred or made on the day that the Court reopens. For the petitioners it is said that the proviso to Section 20 fixes the period of limitation for an application by an agriculturist judgment-debtor when a decree is being executed against him. It is a special provision inserted in the Act to meet the case where an agriculturist against whom a decree has been passed has not taken the steps contemplated by Section 19 and he finds that the decree-holder is taking active steps against him. I consid