K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) BY the order dated 9-7-1990, this appeal was ordered to be transferred to the city civil court, Bangalore city in the light of the Provisions contained in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Karnataka Act No. 13 of 1989 which came into force on 17th april, 1989 read with Section 12 (1) of the Bangalore city civil courts Act, 1979. Before that order came to be typed and signed by us, we noticed that the Provisions contained in Section 18 of the Bangalore city civil courts act No. Had not been taken note of. Therefore, we directed the appeal to be posted "for being spoken to" on 10-7-1990. It was also pointed out to the learned counsel appearing for both sides that as the effect of Section 18 (1) of the Bangalore city civil courts Act, 1979 and the words "law for the time being in force in the city of Bangalore" occurring in Section 12 (1) of the act were not taken into account, the order required to be recalled and the appeal required to be heard on merits. On this, the learned counsel took time to address the court. Time granted till today to address the court. Accordingly, we have heard both sides on the question as to whether the appeal requires to be transferred to the city civil court, Bangalore city or to be heard and decided by this court. In the light of the arguments advanced, we consider it necessary to recall the order dated 9-7-1990 transferring this appeal to the city civil court. Our reasons are as follows:- ( 2 ) PRIOR to 27-11-1980, the entire state of Karnataka was governed by the Karnataka civil courts Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the civil courts act' ). Consequently, the courts existing in Bangalore city were also governed by the civil courts act. However, on 27-11-1980, Bangalore city civil court Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the city civil courts act') came into force. The operation of Section 18 (1) of the city civil courts act excluded the operation of the civil courts act in so far it covered the city of Bangalore. However, on 27-11-1980, Bangalore city civil court Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the city civil courts act') came into force. The operation of Section 18 (1) of the city civil courts act excluded the operation of the civil courts act in so far it covered the city of Bangalore. In sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the civil courts Act, the words "whole of the state of karnataka" came to be substituted by the words "whole of the state of Karnataka except the city of Bangalore. " thus the city of Bangalore came to be excluded from the purview of civil courts act. On and from the same date i. e. , 27-11-1980, city civil court act commenced to operate for the city of Bangalore. As a result thereof, the district courts, civil judges courts and munsiff courts exercising the jurisdiction under the civil courts act came to be abolished and city civil court came to be established for the city of Bangalore. The other provision of the civil courts act relevant for our purpose is Section 12 (1) of the said act which reads as follows: "notwithstanding anything contained in any law but except where the context otherwise requires any reference in any law for the time being in force in the city of Bangalore, to district court, court of civil judge or munsiff's court or to district judge, civil judge or munsiff shall in the city in Bangalore be construed as a reference to the city civil court or a judge of the city civil court, as the case may be, and such law shall, have effect accordingly. " ( 3 ) IT may be noticed at this stage that the suit o. s. No. 75/1975, out of which the appeal in question arises was filed on 19-4-1975. It was decreed on 27-10-1979. The present appeal was filed before this court on 10-1-1980, long before the coming into force of the city civil courts act and exclusion of the city of Bangalore from the operation of the civil courts act. During the pendency of this appeal, the civil courts act came to be amended by Karnataka Act no. 13 of 1989. Karnataka Act No. 13 of 1989 enhanced the pecuniary jurisdiction of the munsiff court from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- and the appellate jurisdiction of the civil judge was enhanced from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000. During the pendency of this appeal, the civil courts act came to be amended by Karnataka Act no. 13 of 1989. Karnataka Act No. 13 of 1989 enhanced the pecuniary jurisdiction of the munsiff court from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- and the appellate jurisdiction of the civil judge was enhanced from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000. Consequent to such changes in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court of the munsiff and that of the civil judge to entertain the appeals, Section 4 (1) of the act provided for transfer of suits and appeals to the respective courts in confirmity with the enhanced pecuniary jurisdiction. Therefore, it is necessary to refer to Section 4 (1) of the Karnataka Act No. 13 of 1989 in greater detail. The said Section reads thus:"4. Transfer of suits and appeals. Therefore, it is necessary to refer to Section 4 (1) of the Karnataka Act No. 13 of 1989 in greater detail. The said Section reads thus:"4. Transfer of suits and appeals. (1) notwithstanding anything contained in the Karnataka Act No. 11 of 1964 of Karnataka Act No. 21 of 1964 or in any other law or Provisions having the force of law, (a) all suits pending on the date of publication of a notification under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act, 1964 (karnataka act No. 11 of 1964) which are triable by a court of small causes by virtue of such notification, shall stand transferred to and be disposed of by the court of small causes as if such suits had been instituted in such court of small causes; (b) original suits and proceedings of a civil nature the amount or value of the subject matter of which does not exceed fifty thousand rupees pending before the court of a civil judge shall, on the date of commencement of this Act, stand transferred to the court of the munsiff and shall be disposed of by such court in accordance with law as if such suits or proceedings concerned had been instituted or commenced in such court; (c) appeals and proceedings connected therewith pending before the high court from decrees and orders passed by a civil judge in original suits or proceedings of a civil nature, the amount or value of the subject matter of which is less than one lakhs rupees shall, on the date of commencement of this Act, stands transferred to the district court and shall be disposed of by such courts in accordance with law as if such appeals or proceedings had been preferred to such court. (2) if there be any doubt as to which court a suit, an appeal or proceeding shall stand transferred in accordance with the Provisions of sub-section (1), the court designated by the high court shall be the court to which such suit, appeal or proceeding shall be transferred and the decision of the high court shall be final. (2) if there be any doubt as to which court a suit, an appeal or proceeding shall stand transferred in accordance with the Provisions of sub-section (1), the court designated by the high court shall be the court to which such suit, appeal or proceeding shall be transferred and the decision of the high court shall be final. " ( 4 ) THE contention advanced on behalf of the appellant is that as sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the karnalaka act No. 13 of 1989 opens with a non-abstante clause and operates irrespective of any law or provision having the force of law; therefore, irrespective of the provision contained in Karnataka Act nos. 11 and 21 of 1964 or any other law or provision having the force of law, the present appeal pending before the high court has stood transferred under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Karnataka Act No. 13/1989 to the city civil court because it is the city civil court which has taken the place of the district court then existing, when the suit was filed and decreed and the appeal was filed before this court. It appears to us that it is very difficult to accept this argument. We have already pointed out that the city of Bangalore has been excluded from the operation of civil courts act. Karnataka Act No. 13/1989 is an amendment to civil courts act. When the civil courts act does not operate in the area covered by the city of Bangalore (within the limits of the metropolitan area of the city of Bangalore), the question of applying the provision contained in Section 4 of Karnataka Act No. 13 of 1989 to the appeal in question which arises out of the city of Bangalore does not arise. However, the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the words "notwithstanding anything contained in the Karnataka Act No. 11 of 1964 and Karnataka Act No. 21 of 1964 or in any other law or Provisions having the force of law contained in Section 4 (1) of Karnataka Act No. 13 of 1989 are wide enough to take away the effect of sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the city civil courts Act, 1979. Therefore, under clause (c) of subsection (1) of Section 4 of Karnataka Act No. 13 of 1989, the appeal has stood transferred to the city civil court. It may be relevant to notice, and it is also the normal mode of enacting the laws by the legislature that under one enactment several laws are amended. In such a case, the provision contained in such enactment relating to another enactment shall have to be read as an amendment to that enactment and cannot be construed as a part of the enactment which contains such amendment. In the instant case, it is relevant to notice that Section 17 of the city civil courts act amends the Provisions contained in the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act (karnataka act No. 11 of 1964 ). In fact, the very heading of that Section 17 states thus:"17. Appeals from certain orders of court of small causes:- an appeal shall lie from every order under Section 35-a and Section 95 of the code as specified in and to the extent provided by Section 104 of the code (a) to the high court where the order is of the court of small causes in the city of Bangalore; (b) to the district court. "similarly, Section 18 of the city civil courts act amends the Provisions contained in the Karnataka civil courts act 21 of 1964. The heading of Section 18 is as follows:"18. Amendment of Karnataka Act No. 21 of 1964. In the Karnataka civil courts Act, 1964 (karnataka act No. 21 of 1964) (1) in sub-section (2) of Section 1, for the words "whole of the state of karnataka" the words "whole of the state of Karnataka except the city of Bangalore" shall be substituted. "though sections 17 and 18 are enacted as part of city civil courts act 19 of 1979, they are really the amendments to Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act, 1964 and Karnataka civil courts Act, 1964 and they form part of those respective enactments. Therefore, the contention that the provision contained in Section 18 of the city civil courts act has no operation, and has been rendered otios or nullified or impliedly repealed by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of Karnataka Act No. 13/1989 cannot be accepted as correct. Section 12 of the city civil courts act is complimentary to Section 3 (4) of the very city civil courts act. Section 12 of the city civil courts act is complimentary to Section 3 (4) of the very city civil courts act. It is intended to continue the jurisdiction hitherto (i. e. , before 27-11-1980) exercised by the various courts referred to in Section 12 of the civil courts Act, under any law, with the city civil court. Therefore, Section 12 of the city civil courts act has no relevance to the point in question. The civil courts Act, as already pointed out, does not operate within the limits of the city of Bangalore. ( 5 ) IT is next contended that sub-section (2) of Section 4 of Karnataka Act no. 13/1989 is provided to meet a contingency when it is doubtful as to which court the appeal or proceeding shall stand transferred on the coming into force of the Karnataka Act No. 13/1989; that in such a situation it provides that the high court has to designate the court to which the appeal or suit or proceeding should be transferred and the decision of the high court in that regard is final. It is not possible to accept this contention which overlooks the basic fact that the civil courts act does not apply to Bangalore city. When the civil courts act itself does not operate within the limits of the city of Bangalore, the question of operation of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of Karnataka Act No. 13/1989 in the city of Bangalore does not arise. Consequently, the question of designating the court situated in the city of Bangalore for the purpose of Section 4 (1) of Karnataka Act No. 13 of 1989 does not arise. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of Karnataka Act No. 13/1989 is available only when in any area to which the civil courts act applies, a doubt arises as to which court the suit or appeal or proceeding shall stand transferred, the high court has to solve that doubt and designate the court to which the suit, appeal or proceeding may stand transferred. Therefore, the contention cannot be accepted. It is accordingly rejected. Hence, we recall the order dated 9-7-1990. ( 6 ) WE have heard the appeal on merits. 6. 1. The respondent-plaintiff has sought for recovery of a sum of Rs. 26,847. 73 ps. Therefore, the contention cannot be accepted. It is accordingly rejected. Hence, we recall the order dated 9-7-1990. ( 6 ) WE have heard the appeal on merits. 6. 1. The respondent-plaintiff has sought for recovery of a sum of Rs. 26,847. 73 ps. As found due on 31-3-1974 at the foot of the accounts, together with interest thereon at 12 per cent per annum from the date of the suit till the date of recovery, and costs from the appellant-defendant. The trial court has decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 26,848/- with current interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on Rs. 24,384/- from the date of suit till the date of payment and costs. It is not necessary to refer to the pleadings of the parties as the same are succinctly stated in the judgment under appeal. Therefore, we do not want to burden our judgment by referring to the pleadings in detail. However, it is sufficient to notice that in the light of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court raised the following issues: 1. Whether the suit as brought by the managing director of the plaintiff is maintainable? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that there was a valid agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding appointment of the defendant as the selling agent distributor of the plaintiff? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest as claimed in the plaint? 4. Whether the suit is in time? 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable for reasons stated in para 11 of the written statement? 6. Whether this court has jurisdiction to try this suit? ( 7 ) WHETHER there is cause of action for the suit?7. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court answered the issue nos. 1 to 5, 7 and 8 in the affirmative and issue No. 6 in the negative. Accordingly it decreed the suit as stated above. ( 8 ) BEFORE us, Sri viswanath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contendedthat before the trial court, the defendant disputed the correctness of the entries in accounts dated 31-3-1971, 10-12-1971, 12-1-1972, 13-1-1973 and 30-3- 1974 and the bank card transfer which had not been accounted in the statement of accounts amounting to Rs. 3,979. 20. The learned counsel also contended that the amount claimed under the invoice dated 8-4-1972 amounting to Rs. 3,979. 20. The learned counsel also contended that the amount claimed under the invoice dated 8-4-1972 amounting to Rs. 7,406. 54 was also beyond the period of limitation as the suit was filed on 15-1-1975; that the trial court has not correctly appreciated the contention of the defendant in relation to the aforesaid entries, the correctness of which was disputed by the defendant. ( 9 ) IN the light of these contentions, the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are as follows: 1. Whether the trial court has committed an error with regard to the entries in ex. P. 3, dated 31-3-1971, 10-12-1971, 12-1-1972, 31-3-1972, 31-3-1973, and 30-3-1974 and the entry relating to bank card transfer? 2. Whether the claim made in respect of the value of the goods supplied on 8- 4-1972 was in time? ( 10 ) POINT No. 1:- regarding the disputed entry, the trial court has pointed outthat ex. P-1 which was the accounts extract produced by the plaintiff was not disputed by the defendant. The accounts extract contained the aforesaid disputed entries also. The trial court has also pointed out that the entries 1 to 6 related to the interest debited on the amount due from the defendant. Therefore, it has held that there is no substance in the defence of the defendant that the entries 1 to 6 in ext. P-3 are not regarding the entry relating to bank card transfer. On the basis of the evidence of P. W. 1, the trial court has come to the conclusion that the credit entry given for Rs. 800/- ought to have been for a sum of Rs. 2,400/ -. Therefore, it has deducted a further sum of Rs. 1,600/- out of the suit claim. The reasoning of the trial court in this regard is found in para 28 of the judgment which is as follows: "28. In the account extract (ex. P-1) a credit was given to the defendant for Rs. 800-00 on 18-9-1972 under the head "by bank transfer 2345". This was disputed by the defendant. In ex. P-3 filed by the defendant, he claimed a credit for Rs. 3979-20 ps. In this regard the defendant did not produce any evidence. Now, if really the defendant was entitled to credit more than what is given in ex. P-1, then the claim should get further diminished. This was disputed by the defendant. In ex. P-3 filed by the defendant, he claimed a credit for Rs. 3979-20 ps. In this regard the defendant did not produce any evidence. Now, if really the defendant was entitled to credit more than what is given in ex. P-1, then the claim should get further diminished. In this regard it is enough to consider the evidence of janakiram (p. w. 1) who said:-"the defendant has claimed credit for Rs. 3979-20 ps. With regard to bank transfer. I have verified and the defendant is entitled to credit of Rs. 2,400/- as per the bank account statement ex. P-5. As against Rs. 800/-, it is clear, credit must have been given for Rs. 2,400/ -. The difference between the two amounts must be adjusted towards the principle found due in the earlier para. If that is done, the amount actually due would be Rs. 25,984-00 1,600-00 = 24,384-00. "the aforesaid reasoning is self explanatory and it goes to prove that in the entry relating to bank card transfer instead of crediting a sum of Rs. 2,400/- the plaintiff had credited only Rs. 800a to the account of the defendant. Therefore, the trial court has correctly deducted a further sum of Rs. 1,600/ -. Hence, we are of the view that the finding of the trial court that the defendant was due to the plaintiff in a sum of Rs. 24,384/- towards the value of the goods supplied and the rest of the amount was interest payable on the same. Accordingly, the trial court is justified in recording the finding that the total sum due as on the date of the suit was Rs. 26,848/ -. We affirm that finding. Point No. 1 is answered accordingly. Point No. 2: ( 11 ) THE contention of the defendant relating to the limitation should not detain usany long. The suit claim covers the goods sold and delivered from 8-4-1972 onwards. It is not in dispute that according to the contract between the parties, the defendant had a credit period of 30 days and the price of the goods became payable only on the expiry of 30 days from the date of delivery of the goods. Article 15 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is attracted to the case which reads thus:"15. It is not in dispute that according to the contract between the parties, the defendant had a credit period of 30 days and the price of the goods became payable only on the expiry of 30 days from the date of delivery of the goods. Article 15 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is attracted to the case which reads thus:"15. For the price of goods sold and delivered to be paid for after the expiry of a fixed period of credit - period of limitation: three years - time from which period begins to run: when the period of credit expires. "thus, the limitation commences or begins to run when the period of credit expires. The three years period was to expire on 8-5-1975 whereas the suit was filed on 19-4-1975 itself. Therefore, the entire claim covering the goods sold and delivered on 8-4-1972 is well in time. So also other claim regarding the goods sold and delivered on 19-4-1972 is also well in time because there was a credit period of 30 days in respect of each supply of goods sold and delivered. Hence, we are of the view that the suit claim is not barred by time. Point No. 2 is answered accordingly. ( 12 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Having regard to the fact that the defendant has not disputed the goods sold and delivered but only contested the appeal on questions of law, we order that the parties shall bear their own costs in this appeal. --- *** --- .