S. 34 of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 40 of 1979 applies only to suits which were barred by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act of 1978.

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 came into force on 15-7-1978. That Act did not contain any express provision preventing a creditor from filing a suit for recovery of the debt. But it contained provisions for scaling down the debts due as on 14-7-1978. That Act was repealed by Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979. S. 34 of the later Act reads thus:—

“34. Exclusion of time for limitation and dissolution of stay of proceedings in respect of certain suits and applications:—

(1) Where, on or after the 15th day of January, 1976, but before the date of the publication of this Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, any suit for the recovery of any amount towards any liability arising out of the debt due from a debtor would have been instituted or any application for the execution of a decree passed in any such suit would have been made but for the fact that the institution of the suit or the making of the application was barred by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978), in computing the period of limitation or limit of time prescribed for such suit or application, the period commencing on and from the 15th day of January, 1976 and ending with the date of the publication of this Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette shall be excluded.

(2) Where any proceedings in any of the suits or applications of the nature mentioned in sub-S. (1) were stayed by any of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1978, (Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978), the stay effected in respect of such proceedings shall stand dissolved and such suit or application shall be proceeded with under that Act front the stage which had been reached when further proceedings in such suit or application were stayed.”

4. It is contended by the plaintiff-appellant that the plaintiff is entitled to the benefits of the above section and the suit is, therefore, not barred by limitation. According to learned counsel, Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978 contained provisions for scaling down the debts and if a suit had been instituted by the plaintiff when the Act of 1978 was in force, he could have filed the suit only for a lesser amount on the basis of scaling down and he could not have claimed the full amount, as done in this case. Thus, according to him the suit was barred by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978. Hence, it is contended that he is entitled to exclude the entire period from 15th January, 1976 to 13th June, 1979, on which date the Act was published in the Gazette.

5. On a plain reading of the section, it is not possible for me to accept the contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. In the first place, the section speaks of suits which would have been instituted on or after 15th January, 1976. In this case, the suit would have been instituted or should have been institu