ORDER : 1. This is a revision, petition by the defendant against a decision of the Court of Small Causes, Lashkar decreeing the plaintiff-non-applicant's claim for Rs. 453/- besides costs and interest against the applicant. 2. The only question for determination in this revision petition is whether the plaintiff's suit filed of 1-7-1952 for the recovery of price of sold and delivered on 22-6-1949 within time. Mr. Ram Prakash Saxena learned counsel for the applicant contended that under the Gwalior State Limitation Act which was in force on 22-6-1949, the plaintiff could have filed his suit within, six years of 22-6-1949; but that as on. 17-7-1949 Act No. 40 of 1949 adapting the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 came into force and as the period of limitation prescribed for suits such as the present one under the Gwalior Limitation Act was longer than the period of limitation prescribed under the adapted Indian Limitation Act, therefore, under S. 4(2) of the Adaptation Act the plaintiff should have filed his suit within the period of two years next of 17-7-1949, the date on which the Adaptation Act came into force. In other words learned counsel maintained that the plaintiff should have filed his suit on or before 16-7-1951 and as it was filed on 1-7-1952 it was barred by time. Mr. Wakankar learned counsel for the non-applicant on the other hand submitted that S. 4(2) of Act No. 40 of 1949 had no applicability in the present case as the plaintiff's suit was, under Art. 52 itself of the adapted Indian Limitation Act, within time. The argument was that under Art. 52 the limitation for the plaintiff's suit expired on 21-6-1952 and as on this day and until 30-6-1952 the Courts were closed for the summer vacation, the plaintiff's suit filed on the opening day that is on 1-7-1952 was within time. Mr. The argument was that under Art. 52 the limitation for the plaintiff's suit expired on 21-6-1952 and as on this day and until 30-6-1952 the Courts were closed for the summer vacation, the plaintiff's suit filed on the opening day that is on 1-7-1952 was within time. Mr. Wakankar contended that the plaintiff's suit was in fact governed by the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 as extended to Madhya Bharat by the Part B States (Laws) Act 1951, which repealed the Madhya Bharat Act, No. 40 of 1949 and brought into force the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 in Madhya Bharat from 1-4-1951, with a new section, namely S. 30 inserted in it; that under this section the plaintiff could file his suit within two years of 1-4-1951; and that as the plaintiff's suit was instituted on 1-7-1952 it was clearly within time. 3. In my opinion the plaintiff's suit is governed by Art. 52, Indian Limitation Act, 1908 as extended to Madhya Bharat by the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951 (Act No. 3 of 1951) which came into force on 1-4-1951. By virtue of S. 6, Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951, the Madhya Bharat Indian Limitation (Adaptation Act) ceased to be operative from 1-4-1951 and cannot, therefore, govern the plaintiff's suit which was instituted on 1-4-1552. Section 30, Indian Limitation Act, 1908 as extended by Act, No. 3 of 1951 has no applicability here for the simple reason that the limitation prescribed for a suit to recover the price of goods sold and delivered was the same under both the Indian Limitation Act 1903 as extended to this State by Act No. 3 of 1951 and under the Madhya Bharat adapted Indian Limitation Act, which Act No. 3 of 1951 repealed, The plaintiff's suit is, therefore, clearly governed by Art. 52 under which the plaintiff could file his suit within three years of 22-6-1949. As this limitation expired during the vacation and the plaintiff filed his suit on the opening day of the Court, it is within time. 4. Mr. Ram Prakash Saxena drew my attention to a decision of Chaturvedi, J. in -'Mishrilal v. Misirilal', 1953 Madh. As this limitation expired during the vacation and the plaintiff filed his suit on the opening day of the Court, it is within time. 4. Mr. Ram Prakash Saxena drew my attention to a decision of Chaturvedi, J. in -'Mishrilal v. Misirilal', 1953 Madh. B. LJ 754 (A), where the learned Judge has made the following observation : "The object of Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951 (Act 3 of 1951) was only to extend those important Central Acts to Part B States which were not in force there. If a Central Act e. g. the Indian Limitation Act was already in force in any Part B States, the Part B States (Laws) Act 1951 cannot be taken to have repealed that Central Act there." 5. Relying on this decision Mr. Saxena said that under S. 4(2), Madhya Bharat Act No. 40 of 1949, the plaintiff should have filed his suit within two years of 17-7-1949. I am unable to accept this contention. Assuming that the view taken by Chaturvedi, J., in the case referred to above is correct and that the Madhya Bharat Act No. 40 of 1949 adapting the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 is still in force in this State, I do not think the limitation for the plaintiff's suit could be computed under S. 4(2) of that Act. That section as is clear from its provision is in the nature of a saving provision preserving suits which would have been within time under the repealed law but which if subjected to the operation of the adapted Act would have become barred by time. It can only apply to those cases where the period of limitation as computed under the relevant article of the adapted Act expires on a date earlier than the date on which limitation as computed under S. 4(2) would expire. Where the last day of limitation under the article concerned is subsequent to the last day of limitation as computed under S. 4(2) of Act No. 40 of 1949, then there is no matter to be saved on which the saving clause S. 4(2) could operate. Clearly the saving provision contained in S. 4(2) of Act No. 40 of 1949 cannot be construed in a manner repugnant to the body of the adapted Indian Limitation Act and so as to curtail the period of limitation available for a suit under the relevant article itself. Clearly the saving provision contained in S. 4(2) of Act No. 40 of 1949 cannot be construed in a manner repugnant to the body of the adapted Indian Limitation Act and so as to curtail the period of limitation available for a suit under the relevant article itself. In the present case the goods having been delivered on 22-6-1949, the plaintiff could under Art. 52 sue for the recovery of the price of the goods, at any time until 21-7-1952. Section 4(2) cannot in my opinion be applied so as to reduce this period of limitation and require the plaintiff that he should have filed his suit on or before 16-7-1951 that is within two years of the coming into force of Act No. 40 of 1949. In my opinion, as S. 4(2) of Act No. 40 of 1949 is not operative in the present case and as S. 30, Indian Limitation Act as extended by Act No. 3 of 1951 also does not apply to the present case, the plaintiff's suit filed on 1-7-1952 is under both the Limitation Acts within time. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary for me to consider whether the view taken by Chaturvedi, J., in - 1953 Madh. B. LJ 754 (A)', is correct. Were it necessary for me to express any opinion on the matter, I would say with all respect to the learned Judge that the view is not in consonance with the clear provisions of S. 6, Part B States (Laws) Act 1951, and does not take note of the fact that the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 was not in force in this State before 1-4-1951 by virtue of any Act of the Dominion Legislature but was adapted here by an Act of the Madhya Bharat Legislature. The Limitation Act which was in force in Madhya Bharat before 1-4-1951 was no doubt in content and form the same as the Limitation Act now in force. Nonetheless it was an Act adapted by Madhya Bharat Legislature and not one extended to this State by the Dominion Legislature. 6. For all these reasons I think the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes was right in holding that the plaintiff's suit was within time. Order accordingly.