Bombay High Court
Raghoji Bhikaji And Ors. vs Abdul Karim on 1 January, 1800
Equivalent citations: (1877)ILR 1BOM590
JUDGMENT Melvill, J.
1. The alteration in the former law (section 4 of Act XIV of 1859) made by the introduction, into Section 20 of Act IX of 1871, of the words "promise," and "before the expiration of the prescribed period," gives some colour to the argument that it was the intention of the Legislature that a debt once barred by lapse of time should not, under any circumstances, be recovered. But the supposition of any such intention is contradicted by Section 25, Clause 3, of the Indian Contract Act, from which it is clear that the "promise" referred to in Section 20 of Act IX of 1871 is a promise introduced, by way of exception, in a suit founded on the original cause of action, and not a promise constituting a new contract, and extinguishing the original cause of action. The distinction is pointed out in the cases cited at the bar: Mulchand v. Girdhar (8 Bom. H.C. Rep. 6 A.C.J.), Hargopal Premsukdas v. Abdul Khan Haji Muhammad (9 H C. Rep. 429) and also in Gopeekishen Goshamee v. Brindabunchunder Sircar (13 Moore I.A. 37; see page 54).
2. The decree of the Court below must be affirmed with costs.