WANCHOO, C. J. - (1.) ALTHOUGH a law of limitation is primarily a law relating to procedure and as such comes into effect right from the moment it has been enacted and governs all proceedings instituted thereafter and has thus retrospective operation, there is ample authority in favour of the principle that whether or not a saving provision exist,* where a subsequent law curtails the period of limitation previously allowed, and such law comes into force atonce, it should not be allowed to have retrospective effect, which it would otherwise have, so as to destroy pre-existing vested rights of suits, because the giving of such retrospective effect amounts to not merely a change in procedure but a forfeiture of the very right to which the procedure relates. (Paras 20 & 8) (Wanchoo C. J. and Dave J. not expressing any view on the wider application of this principle, that is, where a law does not provide a saving clause, whether this principle can still be applied.) (Para 30) Where the language of the law of limitation is not precise and of doubtful import, such law may be construed equitably or reasonably, that is, such construction thereof may be adopted which favour the right to sue rather than which bars that right. Thus where it is a question of supplying an implied clause and it is possible to choose out of two implied clauses it would not be wrong for the court to choose that clause which obviates hardship. ] (Paras 23 & 31 In enacting the Marwar Limitation (Amendment) Act, 1949, the legislature thought it fit to provide a saving section, namely, sec. 4. From this the only reasonable inference is that it wanted to provide a facility to the litigants who would otherwise have been affected by the hardship brought about by the new Act. If we were to interpret this saving provision so as to hold that it applied only to suits to which were barred at the commencement of this Act, then two consequences seem to follow. First, that the saving clause does not more than what would have followed under the general principle as stated above Secondly, on this interpretation the right words to be understood or supplied after the expression "would be barred" being "at the commencement of the Act", the position under the saving section would in fact become worse because in that event all suits which are not barred at the commencement of the Act but must inevitably become barred for reasons entirely outside the control of the parties concerned, will not get any grace under sec. 4 whatever and their vested right of suit would be irrevocably lost. It would not be right to impute such an intention to the legislature, if an alternative reasonable interpretation is possible. Considering (1) that the Marwar Limitation (Amendment) Act, 1949, came into force atonce and (2) that the legislature clearly wanted to afford facilities to the litigants whose rights of suit were going to be affected under the new law, the missing words after the expression "would be barred" are not ''at the commencement of the Act" , but "at the time of its institution". (Para 21) Lalchand vs. Labura (1954 RLW 403 (over ruled)), Khusalbhai vs. Eabhai (ILR VI Bom. 26), Reg vs. Dorabji (11 Bom. HC Rep. 117), Chajmal Das vs. Jagdamba Prasad (ILR XI All. 408), Manjuri Bibi vs. Akkel Mahmud (XIX 1c 793), Gopeshwar vs. Jibanchandra (FB) (AIR 1914 Cal. 806), Lala Soniram vs. Kanhaiya Lal (XIX IC 291), Ramakrishna Chetty vs. Subraya Iyer (AIR 1916 Mad. 607), Rajah of Pittapur vs. Venkata Subha Row (AIR 1916 Mad. 912), Belgaum Dist. School Board vs. Md. Mulla (AIR 1945 Bom. 377), Cornil vs. Budson (120 English Report 160), Queen vs. The Leeds and Bradford Railway Company (21 E. J. M. C. 195), Towler vs. Chatterton (130 English Report 1280), The Ydun (1899) 15 TLR, 361), Negendra Nath vs. Suresh (AIR 1932 PC, 165), General A. F. & L. Assurance Corpn. vs. Janmahomed (AIR, 1941 P. C. 6), Delhi and London Bank vs. Orchard (. 4 I. A. 127), Mohd. , Sadast Ali vs. Lahore Corpn. (AIR, 1945 Lah. 324), Bans Bahadur Singh vs. Mt. Sakalraj Kuar. (AIR, 1924 Oudh, 385), Seshayya Subbadu (AIR, 1930 Mad 991), Durang Pal Singh vs. Pancham Singh (FB) (AIR 1939 All. 403), Udhavji Anandji vs. Bapudas Ramdas (AIR, 1950 Bom. 94), Maqbul Ahmed vs. Onkar Pratap (AIR. 1935 P. C. 85 ). B. N. Chanda, for Appellants; Sohan Nath, for Respondent; R. D. Gattani and Hastimal, amicus curae MODI, J.- This first appeal directed against a judgment and decree of the District Judge, Balotra, dated 27th January, 1954, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit as barred by time,, has been laid before this Full Bench, as it involves a very important point relating to the Law of Limitation.
(2.) THE facts of the case may be stated very briefly for our present purposes. THEre were money dealings between the plaintiffs appellants and the father of the defendant-respondent on whose death the present respondent was brought on the record as his heir and legal representative. THEre were two khatas between the plaintiffs and the respondent defendant's father. It was assumed in the trial court that the parties went into accounts on Migsar Sudi 3, Svt. 2004 corresponding to the 15th of December, 1947, and there came forth two accounts stated; one for a sum of Rs. 20,365/12/-and the other for a sum of Rs. 6,260/10/3. THE plaintiffs added as interest a sum of Rs. 9,041/- calculated at the stipulated rate of 14 as, per cent per mensem up to the date of the suit to the principal sum of Rs. 20,365/12/- on the one Khata, and a further sum of Rs. 3,178/3/- calculated at the rate of 1 per cent per mensem on the other khata and in the result the plaintiffs filed a suit for Rs. 38,845/9/3 in the court of the District Judge, Balotra, on the 23rd January, 1952. THE defendant respondent entirely repudiated the plaintiffs' claim and took a number of pleas in his defence; the most important of which was the plea that the suit was barred by limitation. THE trial court thought fit to try the issue of limitation, in the first instance, as the question involved was of pure law, and both parties had accepted that they did not want to lead any evidence on the issue in question. THE learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation and, he, therefore, dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. This appeal has been file from the above judgment and decree. At the outset, I consider it desirable to set forth, briefly, the changes through which the law of limitation has passed in so far as it is relevant to the present suit. The case comes from what was formerly the State of Jodhpur or Marwar before it formed part of the present State of Rajasthan. When the accounts were stated between the parties, the Marwar Limitation Act, 1945, (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1945) was in force. Art. 64 of that Act which was the relevant Article reads as follows : - Description of suit. Period of Limitation Time for which period begins to run 64. For money payable to plaintiff for money found to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff on accounts stated between them. Six years. When the accounts are stated in writing signed by the defen dant or his agent duly authorised in this behalf. . . " this was followed by the Marwar Limitation (Amendment) Act, 1949, (No. XXXII of 1949) (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1949 ). By sec. 2 (l) (g) thereof, the period applicable to Act, 64 (among other articles relating to suits for money) was shortened from six years to three years. This Act was to come into force from the date of its publication in the official gazette, and for the first time it was published in the Jodhpur Rajpatra dated the 27th March, 1949. It, therefore, came into force at once and no time was left whatsoever between the date of its publication and its enforcement. The Act of 1949 contained a saving section which is sec. 4 and is in these terms: - "4. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act.- (a) Any suit or application for the execution of a decree which would be barred under the provisions of this Act may be instituted or made, as the case may be, within three years next after the commencement of the Act or within the period of limitation previously in force, whichever period expires first, and (b) any application other then an application for the execution of a decree which would be barred by the provisions of this Act may be made within one month next after the commencement of this Act or within the period of limitation previously in force, whichever period expires first. " We are concerned with sub-sec. (a) in this case. The decision of the point of limitation involved in this appeal mainly depends upon the interpretation to be put upon this section; but before I address myself to this question I may as well state that the Rajasthan Limitation Act (Adaptation) Ordinance, 1950, (No. VI of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1950) came into force on the 25th January, 1950. This Act applied to the whole of Rajasthan, and by it the Indian Act was made applicable, subject to a few modifications, with which we are not concerned, with effect from the date on which the Ordinance came into force. This also contained a saving provision namely sec. 9 which I propose to quote later. The Indian Limitation Act provides a period of three years for suits under Art. 64 and no change therein was made in the adaptation. Then came the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951, (No. III of 1951) by which the Indian Limitation Act of 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1951) became wholly applicable in this State. This Act came into force on 1st April, 1951, and was the Act in force when the present suit was instiut-ed. It also contains a saving provision, namely, sec. 30 with which I propose to deal at its proper place. It is against this legislative history that the question of limitation before us falls to be decided. As already stated, it is sec. 4 of the Act of 1949 which we must primarily consider and interpret. Two rival interpretations are urged for acceptance by us. The first interpretation, which has found favour with the trial court, it that saving provision in sec. 4 applies only to suits (we are not concerned with "applications" for our present purposes) which are barred at the commencement of the said Act. It was contended that that is the proper meaning to be put upon the expression "would be barred" occurring in the section and that the period of limitation applicable to a suit be the one which has been prescribed by the Act in force when the suit is filed and, therefore, a saving provision was inserted in this Act for those suits only which may have become barred according to the new Act at the commencement thereof. The provision in the case of such suits was that they may be filed within three years next after the commencement of the Act, that is, upto 26. 3. 1952, or within the period of limitation which was previously in force (that is, according to the Act of 1945) whichever period expires first. On this interpretation it was argued that the present suit which is based on a cause of action dated 15. 12. 1947, was not barred at the commencement of the Act of 1949, and so, sec. 4 would have no application to it, and the period governing limitation was only three years from the date when the cause of action arose i. e. up to 15th December, 1950. It may be at once stated that if the present case falls outside the benefit available under sec. 4, then the plaintiff's suit would be admittedly time-barred under the Acts of 1950 or 1951. I may further mention in this connection that this interpretation of sec. 4 is in consonance with the view accepted in Lalchand vs. Labura (1) (1954 RLW 403.), which was decided by one of us. There it was held that the meaning of sec. 4 (a) was that if on the date that Act came into force, the suit was barred under it the grace allowed by sec. 4 (a) could be taken advantage of by the person filing the suit. But if the suit was not barred under that Act on the date on which it came into force, the period of limitation would be the period fixed by that Act. It has been contended on the other hand on behalf of the plaintiffs that the aforesaid interpretation of sec. 4 would be productive of a good deal of inconvenience, injustice and hardship such as could not have been intended by the Legislature, that the intention of the legislature was best expressed under the circumstances not by adding the words "at the commencement of the Act" after the expression "would be barred" occurring in the section, but the words to be so added should be "at (the time of its institution. " It was argued with great force that if the meaning of the saving provision was not plain or certain, without the addition of some words therein, such words should be added which would work the least hardship, and that interpretation should be adopted by us which would be beneficial and advance the remedy or favour the right to sue rather than destroy or retard it. It was suggested that the expression "would be barred" was not tantamount to "is barred", and that the manner in which the section was worded showed that the intention of the legislature was to allow grace to suits which were barred not merely at the commencement of the Act but which would in future be barred under the provisions thereof. It was also submitted that the expression used in the section was "suit" and not "claim" and that a claim became a suit only when it was instituted as such. It was further submitted that on this interpretation, it was clear that sec. 4 must be taken to have "prescribed" by itself, a certain period for limitation and such period being larger than the period allowed by the Acts of 1950 and 1951, the saving provision in those Acts would also be applicable and the present suit should not be thrown out on the ground of limitation. I may State at once that the question before us is not free from complexity or difficulty. I am fully aware of the view which has been taken in Lalchand's case, but since that case was decided (and, in passing, I may State that full-dress arguments could not have been addressed there in the very nature of things as the revision was dismissed in limine) it has been felt that the matter required fuller consideration and that explains how this point has come before this Full Bench. Now, it is firmly settled that the law of Limitation relates to the branch of procedural laws and no one can claim a vested right in any period of limitation. It, therefore, follows, without the slightest doubt or dispute, that the law which is applicable to a suit or proceeding is the law which is in force when it is instituted. Therefore, such laws normally have received and are entitled to receive retrospective force. It is with a view to avoid the hardship resulting from the retrospective operation of such laws that usually when the pre-existing law of Limitation is amended and the period prescribed thereunder is reduced, the Legislature provides a saving clause in the amending Acts, which allows a period of grace within which suits may be filed and suitors may not be taken by complete surprise. I may further mention in this connection that is also not unusual that when such amending law is enacted, some period is allowed to pass between its publication and the enforcement thereof so that the intention of the legislature is clearly discernible that the new law shall have a retrospective effect and the intervening time during which the new Act is at it were in a state of suspension may be taken advantage of by the litigants by filing their suits or applications. The argument of hardship has almost invariably been repelled by the courts in such cases and rightly so. Unfortunately, considerable difficulties arise, as have arisen in the present case, where no such time is allowed and the amending Act comes into force at the once. I cannot help stating that difficulties have been further accused in the present case on account of the not very artistic manner in which the saving section happens to be worded. The usual wording is that adopted in the repealed sec. 30 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1908 or in the Acts of 1950 and 1951, and if that wording had been adopted by the farmers of the Marwar Act, the difficulty with which we have been confronted would not have arisen. Instead of that wording, what we find in sec. 4 is a provision in respect of a suit which "would be barred under the provisions of this Act". The question is what does the expression "would be barred" mean. "barred at the commencement of the Act" or, "barred at the time of its institution?" The section itself has not made this clear. I may point out in this connection that in my opinion this difficulty is not adequately solved by merely saving that "would be" means "is", or "not is"; but "some time in future". Even assuming that "would be" may be taken as equivalent to "is", the question still arises to which point of time the section refers when it says that a suit is barred, or in one word, barred when ? The need to supply some words after the expression "barred" still remains. That is the question for answer. I am also inclined to the view that the use of the word "suits" in the context in which it has been used as contradistinguished from the word "claim" is not of any real significance. The Limitation Act prescribes periods of limitation for "suits" or "appeals" or "applications" and not for "claims", and in that view the use of the word "suits" has no added significance. What would be barred at the commencement of the Act would also be a suit which has undoubtedly been brought in respect of a claim. I am of opinion, therefore, that nothing substantially turns on the argument referred to above so as to persuade us to adopt the one interpretation rather than the other. I would next refer to another feature which, in my opinion, is of very great importance. That feature is this. It is admitted that suits which are barred at the commencement of the Act will get a grace upto 26th March, 1952 or the previous period of limitation whichever expires first under sec. 4. The question is what is to happen to the suits the limitation whereof may not have become barred but extends up to the date on which the Act of 1919 came into force. Taking a concrete example, suppose the cause of action for a suit arose on the 27th March, 1946. Under the old law, that is, the Act of 1945, limitation for the suit extended up to the 27th March, 1952. On the 27th March, 1949, the Act of 1949 came into force and became applicable at once. The suit was not barred obviously on the commencement of the Act and, therefore, on the interpretation that the expression "would be barred" refers to the commencement of the Act. such a suit would not be eligible for the grace permissible under sec. 4. Such a suit brought; say as the 30th March, 1949, would therefore, be barred by time. This must be so notwithstanding the fact that in the case of a suit for which a cause of action had arisen earlier, that is, beyond three years of the passing of the Act, there would be time left for the plaintiff to file a suit under sec. 4. The same difficulty must arise in the case of suitors whose time would expire within a few days after the Act came into force. It is not difficult to see that the Act must take some time before it gets out of the press and reaches the people. The Act had meanwhile come into force, and there may be hundreds of suits relating to money or immovable property whose limitation may have expired not before the time the Act of 1949 came into force but between the time it became operative and the law was know to the people. It is a serious question to consider whether it was the intention of the legislature to have created such a state of affairs and deprived the citizens of their remedial rights absolutely for no fault of theirs. Shall we say on principle that an Act, be it procedural, should receive such an effect that it throws out of court hundreds of innocent suitors, and deprives them of their very right of suit, which is undoubtedly a vested right? And yet on the interpretation which is put forward on behalf of the respondent, this must be the inevitable result, although the very presence of the saving section in the amended Act throws a pointer to the contrary. It is this aspect of the matter which has caused me the greatest anxiety, and, for this the interpretation which has found favour with the trial court affords no answer. In fact, I am disposed to think that whether a saving provision exists or not, whether an amending Act of Limitation cuts down the period formerly available, and such Act comes into force at once, the true principle of limitation is and must be that the amending Act should not receive a retrospective operation so as to destroy pre-existing and vested rights of suit inspite of the general principle that a law of limitation is procedural and, must therefore, receive retrospective effect. I may in this connection refer to a few cases. The first case to which I may refer is Kausalbhai vs. Kabhai (1) (ILR VI Bom. 26. ). There, in a pending suit which was filed under the Civil Procedure Code of 1877, one of the defendants died and his son was sought to be made his legal representative. He raised the objection that his father had been dead more than six months before the application of the plaintiffs to make him a defendant was made and, therefore, the suit must abate according to sec. 368 of the Civil Procedure Code, Act X of 1877 as amended by the Amending Act, XII of 1879, read with Art. 171-B of the Limitation Act. The amendments came into force at once on the 29th July, 1879, and their effect was to require a plaintiff to apply within 60 days of the defendant's death to have his legal representative brought on the record, but by that time the original defendant had been dead fore more than six months so that it was physically impossible for the plaintiffs to have carried out the direction of the legislature. It was held that the provisions of Art. 171-B of the Limitation Act should not be given retrospective effect and that the plaintiff's application was not time barred. Reference was made in this case to the decision in a earlier case Reg vs. Dorabji (2) and on which the courts below had relied wherein the rule was laid down that an Act of limitation, being a law of procedure, governs all proceedings, to which its terms are applicable, from the moment of its enactment, except so far as its operation is expressly excluded or postponed. " But this case was distinguished and it was laid down that the rule enunciated in the previous case was subject to a qualification that: - "when the retrospective application of a statute of limitation would destroy vested rights, or inflict such hardship or injustice as could not have been within the contemplation of the Legislature, then the statute is not, any more than any other law, to be construed retrospectively. " In the earlier case, that is, Reg vs. Dorabji (2) (11 Bom. H. C. Rep 117.), facts were these. An accused who was tried for murder had been acquitted on 6th November, 1873. An appeal was filed on the 6th June, 1874. On the 5th May, an amending Act No. II of 1874 came into force by which sec. 272 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was amended and it was laid down that no appeal shall be presented more than six months after the date of the judgment complained of. It is interesting to note that six months in this case ended on the 5th of May, the date on which the amending Act came into force. The learned Judges held that the appeal was time-barred on the ground that the Law of Limitation was a law of procedure, and governed all proceedings to which its terms were applicable from the moment of its enactment, except, so far as its operation was expressly excluded or postponed. I am inclined to think that this case decided on its special facts. The question of the liberty of the subject was involved and the learned Judges may have felt justified in imputing an intention to the Legislature favourable to such liberty. In Chajmal Das vs. Jagdamba Prasad (3) (ILR XI All. 408.), the plaintiff-respondent in a pending appeal died on the 17th September, 1885. The defendants appellants applied to the High Court to bring certain persons on the record, as the legal representatives of the deceased on the 24th July, 1888. Meanwhile the Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act No. VII of 1888 had come into force on the 1st July, 1888, and by it an application for substitution was required to be made within six months of the death of the deceased party. The period previously in force was three years. On a reference to the substitution was a fresh application and not a continuation of any former proceedings between the parties, and as it had been made on the 24th July, 1888, after the new Act had come into force and six months' limitation applied, it was barred by time. The ratio of the decision was that no person has any vested right in procedure and that an application made or a suit commenced after a particular Act regulating procedure has come into operation must be dealt with according to the rules provided in such Act. This decision was obviously given on the general principle. The actual decision may, however, be supported on the ground that the Act No. VII of 1888 had been brought into force after a certain period of its enactment and publication, and in the meantime it was in a State of suspension. But the learned Judge did not reply on any such ground in arriving at their decision and based it simply on the principle that a law relating to procedure, such as the Law of Limitation, governed all cases which are instituted after such law has come into force. I may next refer to Manjuri Bibi vs. Akkel Mahmud (1) (XIX IC 793.) a case, in which two learned Judges having differed, was placed before a third Judge. In a very able and learned Judgment, Mookerjee J. after carefully going through a number of Indian, English and American decision came to the following conclusion. : - "but whatever controversy there may be as to the particular mode of interpretation to be adopted, there is a singular uniformity of judicial opinion that statutes coming into operation immediately they become law and declaring generally that an action must be brought within a limited time after accruing, will not be construed retrospectively so as to bar causes of action which accrued more than the limited time before the statue was passed. On the other hand, where a new statute of limitation reduces the time previously allowed for commencement of the suit but does not come into operation forthwith and allows a reasonable time for the enforcement of existing causes of action, the court will not hesitate to hold that the statute may affect causes of action already accrued in the same manner as those accruing after its passage. . . . . . . . . The essence of the matter is that when a new Statute of Limitation which shortens the period for institution of suits and comes into force the moment it becomes law is sought to be made retrospectively applicable to causes of action which have accrued earlier than the length of time prescribed, it ceases to be a statute of more procedure and serves to destroy pre-existing and enforceable rights. Under circumstances like these, the Court, when invited to hold that the new statute has retrospective operation, will struggle against the acceptance of such an interpretation, unless there is the clearest indication that the legislature intended to destroy existing rights without notice and thus to penalise innocent litigants. " In Gopeshwar vs. Jiban Chandra (F. B.) (2) (AIR. 1914 Cal. 806.), the question arose whether the decision of the majority of the Judges in Manjuri Bibi's case was affected by the judgment of the Privy Council in the case of Lala Soniram vs. Kanhaiya Lal (3) (XIX IC 291.), and it was held that it was not. I may point out that the question before their Lordships in Soniram's case was different. In that case it was held that a suit brought in 1907 was not governed by the Limitation Act No. XIV of 1959 but by the later Act No. XV of 1877 and the acknowledgments relied on to extend the limitation being not within the meaning of sec. 19 of the Act of 1877 were ineffectual to extend the period of limitation. Their Lordships were not called upon the consider the retrospective operation of a period of limitation provided by a law coming into force at once. In Ramkrishna Chetty vs. Subraya Iyer (4) (AIR 1916 Mad. 607.), it was held that : - "unless the terms of a statute expressly so provide or necessarily require it, retrospective operation will not be given to a statute so as to affect, alter or destroy and vested right. Statutes relating to procedural law are as much subject to this important qualification as statutes dealing with substantive rights. "
(3.) IN Rajah of Pittapur vs. Venkata Subba Row (5) (IR 1916 Maid. 912.), it was held, on a difference between two Judges that : - "the correct rule seems to be that though laws affecting limitation might abridge or enlarge periods of limitation in cases of suits or causes of action which were alive at the date when the new enactment came into force and which under the old law would expire afterwards, the change cannot, unless there is a clearly expressed intention to the contrary, either by apt words in the enactment or otherwise, be retrospective so as to destroy rights of suits which were alive on the date. " In Belgaum Dist. School Board vs. Md. Mulla (1) (IAR 1945 Bom. 377.), Chagla J. as he then was, held that: - "it is clear that as a rule statutes of limitation being procedural laws must be given a retrospective effect in the sense that they must be applied to all suits filed after they came into force. This general rule has got to be read with one important qualification, and that is that if the statute of limitation, if given a retrospective effect, destroys a cause of action which was vested in a party or makes it impossible for that party for the exercise of his vested right of action, then the courts would not give retrospective effect to the statute of limitation. " I may point out that in this case the Bombay Primary Education Act (No. XII) of 1938 which reduced the period of limitation to six months from the date of the Act or default complained of was published on the 27th May, 1938, and it came into effect on the 1st of July, 1938. A notice of 30 days had to be given to the authorities concerned before the suit could be filed but still a period of 64 days was left to the plaintiff to file the necessary suits. The learned Judge accordingly, howsoever reluctantly, dismissed the plaintiff's suit except for a period of six months preceding the suit. I may now refer to a few English cases. In Cornill vs. Hudson (2) (120 English Reports 160.), the plaintiff was in prison in 1844 when his cause of action arose and remained therefor more than six years. By sec. 10 of the Mercantile Law Amendment Act. 1956 (19 and 20 Vict. c. 97) which came into force on the 29th July, 1856, the statute of limitation was amended and it was provided in effect that residence of the plaintiff beyond the seas or his imprisonment would not afford any ground for extension of limitation, and the period of limitation could not be computed from the determination of the imprisonment. The obvious result was that the plaintiff was altogether deprived of his remedy. Lord Campbell C. J. held that the amended law prevented any action being commenced after the period had elapsed within which, if the prisoner had been at large, he must have sued, and that the plaintiff was clearly within the scope of such law according to its grammatical and natural construction. The learned Chief Justice further pointed out that the cases cited merely showed that they were to find out the intention of the Legislature in each particular Act, and was of the opinion that the intention in that case was to prevent actions thereafter to be brought whether on past or future transactions. It was further observed that persons should not, by merely remaining abroad, when travelling was so easy and directions could be so readily transmitted, be enabled indefinitely to prolong the time within which they could commence their actions and that the Legislature intended to prevent the vexatious prolongation of the right, and, therefore, there was no injustice in such intention which could fairly be collected from the words of the 19th section. Erie J. concurring in the same decision further pointed out that where the Legislature intended to keep the right of section alive after the coming into operation of the Act, it made express provision as in sec. 9 and that as no such provision was made under the 10th section, they were bound to give effect to the intention of the Legislature. In Queen vs. The Leeds and Bradford Railway Company (3) (21 J. M. C. 195), the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848 (II and 12 Vict. c. 43) came into force on the 2nd October, 1848, and provided that certain awards must be applied for and obtained within six months from the time when the damage was done. The damage in this case had been done before 1847 ended and six months had already passed before the Act of 1848 was passed. The claim was, therefore, thrown out as barred by time. It may be pointed out, however, that there was an interval of six weeks between the passing of the Act and its coming into operation and this period was considered to be sufficient to provide against any possible hardship that might result from a retrospective operation of the Act. It is remarkable that Lord Campbell C. J. in this case said - "if it had been enacted that the provisions of the statute should have come into operation immediately, I should have said that there was a hardship in their being construed retrospectively, and I should not have been willing so to construe them. But, here, the Act receiving the Royal assent on 14th August, sec. 38 directs that it "shall commence and take effect from the 2nd day of September in the year of our Lord 1848. " That seems to be an intimation by the Legislature that they mean to give a time, whether long or short, within which bygone matters of complaint may be brought before justices, and the limitation avoided. Six or seven weeks are given; if the interval had been as many months, the case would be the same. " Again, in Towler vs. Chatterton (1) (130 English Reports 1280), retrospective operation was given to 9 C. 4 C. 14 which was passed on the 9th May, 1828, but was to come into force on the 1st January, 1829, whereby it was provided that in an action for debt, an acknowledgment of promise to take a case out of the statute of limitation must be in writing and signed by the party who is sought to be charged. The plaintiff relied on an oral promise made by the defendant in February, 1828. The plaintiff was non-suited and the Act was given a retrospective operation principle that all hardship must be considered to have been obviated by the Legislature declaring that the Act should not take effect till the 1st January, and all persons who relied on such parol promises ware given seven months or more in which to bring their actions. The last English case to which I may refer is The Ydun (2) ( (1899) T. L. R. 361. ). It was provided by the Public Authorities Protection Act that an action against any person, in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of any Act of Parliament or of any public duty or authority, must be commenced within six months next after the act, neglect or default complained of. The Act was passed on the 1st January, 1894, and the plaintiff brought his action on the 14th November, 1898. Lord Justice Smith observed that - "when a new enactment deals with rights of action, unless it is so expressed in the Act, an existing right of action is not taken away. But where the enactment deals with procedure only, unless the contrary is expressed, the enactment applies to all actions. " This case again illustrates the principle that the courts will have no hesitation in giving retrospective action to a rule of limitation where the Legislature has given some interval between the publication of the Act and its enforcement. In this case a period of 26 days was allowed between the passing of the enactment and its coming into operation. I need not multiply examples. ;