Banerjee, J. - (1.) The applicability of the provisions of Indian Limitation Act vis-a-vis the interpretation of Article 535 of the Portuguese Civil Code, said to be the governing law of Limitation in the State of Goa, Daman and Diu, is the focal point for consideration in this appeal. Needless to record that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 contains the provisions for savings of the Limitation Act which expressly provides that the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (both inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by special or local law. In interpreting the said provision under Section 29(2) and the Portuguese Civil Code pertaining to the question of limitation as being a local law within the meaning of Section 29 (2) this Court in the case of Justiniano Augusto De Piedade Barreto vs. Antonio Vicente Da Fonseca, AIR 1979 SC 984 came to a conclusion that the body of the provisions in the Portuguese Civil Code dealing with the subject of limtiation of suits etc. and in force in the Union Territory of Goa Daman and Diu only, is the local law within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. This Court further held that these provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code have to be read in the Limitation Act 1963 as if the schedule to the Limitation Act stands amended mutatis mutandis and question of any repugnancy does not and cannot arise. The earlier decision Justiniano (supra) obviously was on an inspiration from the provisions of Section 3 of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Extension of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Arbitration), Act, 1965 by which both the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Arbitration Act, 1940 were extended to the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu and it is on this perspective this Court in paragraph 10 of the Report observed:". . . . . .Section 4 of the Act repeals so much of the law in force in the Union territory of Goa, Daman and Diu as corresponds to the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 or the Arbitration Act, 1940. This Act also neither expressly nor by implication repeals the provision relating to limitation contained in the Portuguese Civil Code."
(2.) Turning on to the factual matrix at this juncture however, be it noted that Syndicate Bank is in Appel against the order of Panji Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in First Appeal No. 73/1985 wherein the High Court came to a definite conclusion that in the event the cause of action, as has been in the matter under consideration, has arisen outside the Portuguese law, then part of the aforesaid law dealing with a period of limitation will not apply and the same would be governed by the Indian Limitation Act and since the cause of action under consideration arose outside the Portuguese Law no exception can be taken to the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji as regards the rejection of plaint being barred by limitation.
(3.) Incidentally , the only ground of challenge in the Appeal before the High Court also pertained to the issue of limitation. Both the learned Civil Judge and the High Court however, relied on a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Cadar Constructions vs. M/s. Tara Tiles, AIR 1984 Bom 258 wherein the High Court after consideration of the decision of this Court in Justiniano's case (supra) summarised the situation in paragraph 25 of the report as below: "25. We may now summarise our conclusions in this regard. (i) Provisions in the Portuguese Civil code or other Codes in force in this Union Territory relating to the periods of limitation are local laws within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Justiniano's case (AIR 1979 SC 984): (ii) But they are also special laws dealing with the rights and liabilities under the Codes themselves of which they form a part. (iii) If any cause of action arises under the Portuguese law in force in the Union Territory, then the period of limitation for the suit based upon that cause of action will be the period mentioned in the relevant Portuguese law. If, however, the relevant provision in the Portuguese law has been repealed and the cause of action has arisen before the repeal of the law then, nowithstanding the repeal, a suit based upon that cause of action can be filed and even in that case the relevant provision relating to the period of limitation will be the provisions in the Code itself. (iv) If, however, the cause of action has arisen outside the Portuguese law, then that part of the law dealing with the period of limitation will not apply, on the other hand, a suit filed on the basis of the cause of action arising outside the Portuguese law will be governed by the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963." During the course of hearing of these appeals, the reasonings as setforth in Cadar Construction's case (supra) have been relied upon and it was contended that in any event the Portuguese Civil Code being not a special legislation pertaining to the issue of limitation, the Code, cannot be termed to be a special law or local law within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act and a bench of two Judges of this Court hearing the matter, upon assessment of the situation, found the submission to be attractive and as such, there was a felt-necessity for reconsideration of the judgment in Justiniano's case (supra) by a larger Bench. It is in terms therewith that this Bench stands constituted for reconsideration of the issue of applicability of the provisions of Limitation Act in the State of Goa, Daman and Diu.;