Savithri Ammal (Deceased) vs R.M.Sp. Ramasami Chettiar on 28 July, 2003
In Manickam Chettiar vs. Ramanatha Thevar [1996 (2) L.W. 406],
AR.Lakshmanan, J., as he then was, after referring to almost all the decisions
on the subject, held that the plaintiff clearly averred in the petition that
he was under the bonafide belief that the respondent was entitled to the
benefit of the various debt relief legislations and therefore could not come
to the court at the earliest point of time. There is no reason for the court
to disregard the bonafide claim of the plaintiff for his not coming to the
court at the earliest point of time. His Lordship approved the view taken by
D. Raju, J. in [1996 (2) L.W. 92] that the law of limitation does not
destroy the right, but only denies the remedy. His Lordship held that the
moratorium period, viz. 4 years 4 months and 27 days is to be excluded.