ORDER Bellie, J. 1. The question in this second appeal is whether the suit is in time. The defendant is the appellant. 2. The suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,371-25 due on a promissory note dated 11.5.1970. An endorsement of payment was made on the promissor note on 1.4.1973. The suit was filed on 28.1.1978. According to the plaintiff he bona fide believed that the defendant was an agriculturist and therefore he was entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists Debt Relief Acts and hence the suit filed beyond three years from the date of endorsement is in time. 3. In the written statement it was contended that the defendant though an agriculturist is paying agricultural income tax and hence he is not entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Agriculturists Debt Relief Acts and hence the suit ought to have been filed within the normal period of limitation and that having not been the suit is barred by limitation and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. The trial Court decreed the suit and it was confirmed by the first appellate Court. 5. Mr. T.R. Mani, learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant argues that it may be the plaintiff was under the bona fide belief that the defendant was an agriculturist but to the notice issued by the plaintiff the defendant sent a reply on 27.9.1977 stating that he is assessed to agricultural income tax and therefore he is not entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists Debt Relief Acts and therefore the bona fide belief if any of the plaintiff has ceased on that date and hence the suit ought to have been filed on the next day itself, but the suit has been filed only on 28.1.1978 and thus the suit is barred by limitation. 6. We are concerned with the two Agriculturists Debt Relief Acts viz., Tamil Nadu Acts 10 of 1975 and 15 of 1976. Act 10 of 1975 came into force on 16.1.1975 as per Section 1(3) thereof, and as per Section 3 no suit for recovery of any debt shall be filed against an agriculturist for one year from that date. 6. We are concerned with the two Agriculturists Debt Relief Acts viz., Tamil Nadu Acts 10 of 1975 and 15 of 1976. Act 10 of 1975 came into force on 16.1.1975 as per Section 1(3) thereof, and as per Section 3 no suit for recovery of any debt shall be filed against an agriculturist for one year from that date. Act 15 of 1976 came into force on 15.1.1976 as per Section 1(3) thereof, and as per Section 3 no suit for recovery of any debt shall be filed against an agriculturist for one year from that date. Therefore, under these two Acts no suit for recovery of debt can be filed against an agriculturist from 16.1.1975 to 14.1.1977 i.e., for a period of two years. Under Section 5(1) of Act 10 of 1975 as well as Act 15 of 1976 in computing the period of limitation for filing a suit for recovery of debt, the time during which the institution of suit was barred by limitation under Section 3 of these Acts or the period during which the plaintiff or his predecessor-in-title believing in good faith that Section 3 of the Act would apply to such suit refrained from instituting the suit, shall be excluded. Therefore two years time barred under Section 3 shall be excluded from the normal period of three years or if the plaintiff was under the bona fide belief that the defendant was an agriculturist entitled to the period barred under Section 3, that period during which he was in such belief, shall be excluded. From 1.4.1973 i.e., the date of endorsement up to 16.1.1975 i.e., the date of commencement of the Act 10 of 1975 a period of 1 year 9 months and 15 days has elapsed. From 16.1.1975 two years period, or the period (within that two years period) during which the plaintiff was under the bona fide belief that Section 3 would apply to the suit, shall be excluded. In this case even according to the defendant, only by his reply notice dated 27.9.1977 i.e., after 2 years after the date or commencement of Act 10 of 1975 viz., 16.1.1975, the plaintiff was informed that the defendant was not an agriculturist; Therefore the two years period barred under Section 3 commencing from 16.1.1975 shall be excluded. In this case even according to the defendant, only by his reply notice dated 27.9.1977 i.e., after 2 years after the date or commencement of Act 10 of 1975 viz., 16.1.1975, the plaintiff was informed that the defendant was not an agriculturist; Therefore the two years period barred under Section 3 commencing from 16.1.1975 shall be excluded. Thus excluding the two years from the normal period of limitation of three years from 1.4.1973 i.e., the date of endorsement, the plaintiff will have commencing from 16.1.1977 the unspent period of 1 year 2 months and 15 days i.e., time up to 313.1978. Now, the suit has been filed on 28.1.1978 and therefore the suit is well within time. Mr. T.R. Mani argues that once the time of limitation begins to run, it would run continuously and there cannot be any intervening period. But this is against the express terms of Section 5(1) which provides for exclusion of time. 7. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed with costs.