Judgment :- An interesting question of law arises for consideration in this case. It depends on the interpretation of S. 34 of Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 40 of 1979. 2. The relevant facts are these: The defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 3,275/- on 16-8-1964 under Ex. A.1. Three endorsements were made on Ex. A.1 evidencing payments of Rs. 20/- on 4-8-1967/- Rs. 1,017 on 18-10-1969 and Rs. 5/- on 9-10-1972. The endorsements are respectively marked as Exs. A.2, A.3 and A.4. The suit was filed on 30-11-1979. The defendant raised a plea of limitation and also contended that a sum of Rs. 405/- owed by the plaintiff should be deducted from the amount which may be found due to the plaintiff. Both the Courts have accepted the plea of limitation and dismissed the suit. 3. The plaintiff contends that the suit is not barred by limitation as the defendant was entitled to the benefits of the Moratorium Acts which were in force from 16-1-1975. The suit should have been filed normally on 8-10-1975 but for the Moratorium Acts. Admittedly, in this State, Moratorium Ordinances and Acts were in force from 16-1-1975 to 15-7-1978. Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978 came into force on 15-7-1978. That Act did not contain any express provision preventing a creditor from filing a suit for recovery of the debt. But it contained provisions for scaling down the debts due as on 14-7-1978. That Act was repealed by Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979. S. 34 of the later Act reads thus:— “34. That Act did not contain any express provision preventing a creditor from filing a suit for recovery of the debt. But it contained provisions for scaling down the debts due as on 14-7-1978. That Act was repealed by Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979. S. 34 of the later Act reads thus:— “34. Exclusion of time for limitation and dissolution of stay of proceedings in respect of certain suits and applications:— (1) Where, on or after the 15th day of January, 1976, but before the date of the publication of this Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, any suit for the recovery of any amount towards any liability arising out of the debt due from a debtor would have been instituted or any application for the execution of a decree passed in any such suit would have been made but for the fact that the institution of the suit or the making of the application was barred by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978), in computing the period of limitation or limit of time prescribed for such suit or application, the period commencing on and from the 15th day of January, 1976 and ending with the date of the publication of this Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette shall be excluded. (2) Where any proceedings in any of the suits or applications of the nature mentioned in sub-S. (1) were stayed by any of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1978, (Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978), the stay effected in respect of such proceedings shall stand dissolved and such suit or application shall be proceeded with under that Act front the stage which had been reached when further proceedings in such suit or application were stayed.” 4. It is contended by the plaintiff-appellant that the plaintiff is entitled to the benefits of the above section and the suit is, therefore, not barred by limitation. According to learned counsel, Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978 contained provisions for scaling down the debts and if a suit had been instituted by the plaintiff when the Act of 1978 was in force, he could have filed the suit only for a lesser amount on the basis of scaling down and he could not have claimed the full amount, as done in this case. Thus, according to him the suit was barred by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978. Hence, it is contended that he is entitled to exclude the entire period from 15th January, 1976 to 13th June, 1979, on which date the Act was published in the Gazette. 5. On a plain reading of the section, it is not possible for me to accept the contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. In the first place, the section speaks of suits which would have been instituted on or after 15th January, 1976. In this case, the suit would have been instituted or should have been instituted on or before 8-10-1975. Of course, it could not have been filed by the plaintiff as moratorium Ordinance of 1975 was in force at that time. But yet the suit will not fall within the category of suits mentioned in S. 34 which would have been instituted on or after 15th January, 1976. 6. Learned counsel submits that even if the bar under the Ordinance and Act of 1975 could be taken into consideration and if a subsequent Moratorium Act had not been passed, the plaintiff could have instituted the suit on or after 15th January, 1976 and S. 34 would govern the said suit. Though I am not inclined to agree, it is not necessary for me to rest my conclusion on that aspect of the matter. 7. The later part of the section expressly states that the period of exclusion would apply only to suits which were barred by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act of 1978. In this case, the amount due under the promissory note was much more than Rs. 500/- and the amounts paid by the debtor did not exceed the amount which would have been due to the creditor on scaling down of the debt under S. 7 of the Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978. Therefore, the plaintiff could have filed a suit for recovery of the amount due to him after applying the provisions of scaling down under S. 7 of Act 40 of 1978. 8. S. 7(1)(a) of Act 40 of 1978 declared- “Where on each occasion the principal amount advanced or incurred does not exceed five hundred rupees, the whole of the principal amount together with the interest thereon shall be deemed to be wholly discharged”. 8. S. 7(1)(a) of Act 40 of 1978 declared- “Where on each occasion the principal amount advanced or incurred does not exceed five hundred rupees, the whole of the principal amount together with the interest thereon shall be deemed to be wholly discharged”. Similarly, S. 7(2)(i) of Act 40 of 1978 declared: “Where the amounts already paid by a debtor towards the principal or interest or both are equal to, or exceed in the aggregate the amount as so scaled down, the debt shall be deemed to have been wholly discharged”. In this case, the debt could not have been deemed to have been discharged either under S. 7(1)(a) or under S. 7(2)(i). Consequently, the plaintiff was in a position to file the suit for recovery of the amount due to him after the debt was scaled down under the provisions of S. 7 of he said Act. Hence, it cannot be contended that a suit by the plaintiff was one which was barred by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act of 1978. 9. There is no provision in Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978 expressly or specifically barring the filing of any suit. It is only the provisions of S. 7(1)(a) or 7(2)(i) which by necessary implication barred the filing of the suit as the entire debt was deemed to have been discharged. Any debt which did not fall under S. 7(1)(a) or S. 7(2)(i) could have been sued upon by the creditor for whatever the amount that may be due to him under the Act. If the plaintiff had filed suit for recovery of such amount after scaling down, his claim would have been saved from the bar of limitation. Not having chosen to file the suit when the Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978 was in force the plaintiff is clearly prevented by the law of limitation from instituting the suit after the prescribed period is over. The plaintiff should have instituted the suit on or before 8-4-1979, after excluding the period of moratorium imposed by the various Ordinances and Acts of moratorium. Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979 came into force only on 13th June, 1979. Hence, the plaintiffs remedy was barred even before Act 40 of 1979 came into force as the suit is not saved by the language of S. 34 of the Act. Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979 came into force only on 13th June, 1979. Hence, the plaintiffs remedy was barred even before Act 40 of 1979 came into force as the suit is not saved by the language of S. 34 of the Act. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel; for the appellant cannot be accepted. 10. Learned counsel submitted that sub-S. (2) of S. 34 would help him in this case. There is no substance in that submission. Sub-S. (2) relates only to proceedings which were stayed by any of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 40 of 1978. S. 16 of Act 40 of 1978 provided for stay of execution proceedings with reference to decrees passed against persons who are entitled to the benefits of that Act. It is not a case in which a decree was passed and proceedings in execution were stayed by Act 40 of 1978. Hence, that contention has also got to fail. 11. My attention is drawn to a judgment in Sivasubramaniam (Alias) Kandasami v. Mohideen Pitchai 99 L.W. 198. In that decision, S.A. Kader, J., considered the debt due on a promissory note dated 18th March, 1974 by an agriculturist. The suit was filed on 8th June, 1981. The moratorium was held to be in force from 16th June, 1975 to 14th June, 1979. The learned Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to exclude the entire period of four years four months and 27 days and his suit was in time. He referred to S. 34 of the Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978 and observed as follows: “This section covers the period covered by the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act 15 of 1976 as amended by the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Laws (Amendment) Act of 1977 the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Laws (Second Amendment) Act of 1977 and the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Laws (Amendment) Act 2 of 1978, and the period during which the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 40 of 1978 was in force, that is from 15th January, 1976 to 13th June, 1979, when the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 40 of 1979 came into force. But the section is not happily worded, as I shall now show.” “Under S. 34, the period commencing on an from 15th January, 1976 and ending with the date of the publication of this Act (13th June, 1979) is excluded in cases where suits or applications for execution would have been instituted or made but for the fact that the institution of the suit or the making of the application was barred by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 40 of 1978. As already pointed out, the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 40 of 1978 did not bar the institution of the suit or th e making of the application for execution, but only provided for scaling down of certain debts. The Legislature could not have intended to provide for a contingency which did not exist. What the Legislature has really intended is the application of the section to cases covered by the Rules of scaling down provided for in the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 40 of 1978, the period from 15th January, 1976 till the date of the publication of Act 40 of 1979 (13th June, 1979) is excluded in computing the period of limitation for filing a suit or making of an application for execution”. 12. It is not clear from the report as to whether the debt was deemed to be discharged under S. 7(1) (a) or S. 7(2) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978. Those facts are not referred to in the report. However, if the learned Judge intended to lay down as an abstract proposition that all debts on which suits were barred, by the moratorium legislations prior to the passing of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978 would come within the purview of S. 34 of the said Act, I must express my respectful dissent. The language of the section is clear. It cannot be presumed or assumed that the legislature provided for a contingency which did not exist. Nor can the Legislature be attributed with ignorance of the provisions of Act 40/78. As pointed out already, there were two contingencies in which suits were barred by the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978. They were under S. 7(1)(a) and S. 7(2)(i) of the said Act. It is only to such suits, S. 34 of Act 40 of 1979 would apply. As pointed out already, there were two contingencies in which suits were barred by the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978. They were under S. 7(1)(a) and S. 7(2)(i) of the said Act. It is only to such suits, S. 34 of Act 40 of 1979 would apply. The Legislature would not have intended to make the section applicable to suits which could have been instituted under Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978 and which were not barred by the provisions of that Act. The expression barred cannot be construed to cover even cases which were not barred and in which suit could have been filed for scaled down amounts. If the section is given effect to fully, the only results that will follow is that suits which were completely barred by the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978 are alone entitled to have the benefit of exclusion of the entire period between 15-1-1976 and 13-6-1979. 13. Thus the conclusion of the courts below is correct though the reasoning is not fully correct. The second appeal fails and it is dismissed. But there will be no order as to costs.