An interesting question of law arises for consideration in this case. It depends on the interpretation of S. 34 of Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 40 of 1979.

2. The relevant facts are these: The defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 3,275/- on 16-8-1964 under Ex. A.1. Three endorsements were made on Ex. A.1 evidencing payments of Rs. 20/- on 4-8-1967/- Rs. 1,017 on 18-10-1969 and Rs. 5/- on 9-10-1972. The endorsements are respectively marked as Exs. A.2, A.3 and A.4. The suit was filed on 30-11-1979. The defendant raised a plea of limitation and also contended that a sum of Rs. 405/- owed by the plaintiff should be deducted from the amount which may be found due to the plaintiff. Both the Courts have accepted the plea of limitation and dismissed the suit.

3. The plaintiff contends that the suit is not barred by limitation as the defendant was entitled to the benefits of the Moratorium Acts which were in force from 16-1-1975. The suit should have been filed normally on 8-10-1975 but for the Moratorium Acts. Admittedly, in this State, Moratorium Ordinances and Acts were in force from 16-1-1975 to 15-7-1978. Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978 ca