1 The only question for consideration in this case is whether the suit is barred by limitation. The suit is on a promissory note dated 3rd August 1956 and it was filed only on 25th June 1961.

2 The learned advocate of the petitioner draws my attention to the decision in Mooppantakathu Puthiya Purayil Mammad v. Chirammal Abdul Salam 1963 (1) KLR 137 by Velu Pillai, J. My learned brother, on the authority of some decisions of the Madras High Court arising under Madras Act I of 1955, has held that a decree debt gets split up into instalments under the provisions of Act 31 of 1958 and the same has to be executed as if it were an instalment decree. I may straightaway observe that this decision relates to the execution of a decree and not to a debt on which a suit is filed. Regarding suits this Court has already held in Mudirappoyil Kallari Ammad v. Valiaparambath Poyil Pokkan (C. R. P. No. 427 of 1961) that since there is no bar of suit under S.3(2) of Act 31 of 1958, the creditor cannot claim any extension of the period of limitation for the institution of the suit. This view was expressed even in earlier cases (Vide Sankaran v. Kumaran ( 1962 KLT 390 ) and the Division Bench ruling in