Introduction 

The Limitation Act, 1963 is a general law and shall be applicable to whole of India irrespective of any local law or special law. 

Facts

• Appellant (Syndicate Bank) filed a suit against the respondent (Prabha D. Naik) for the recovery of suit of Rs. 32,353.30 with future interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 
• The appellant was the principal debtor and advanced loan to defendant in July 1978 and the respondent agreed to pay back in December 1978 at Goa. 
• The Defendant in the suit failed to repay the loan as promised and several demands to the plaintiffs were of no effect whatsoever and hence the suit was filed. 
• The Officer Superintendent raised an office objection on the ground of limitation. 
• However, the appellant contended that the suit is not barred by limitation based on the precedents by the Supreme Court in the case of Justiniano Augusto De Piedada Barreto v. Antonio Vicente De Fonseca and Ors (1979) and it falls under the purview of Portuguese law as the cause of action arose in Goa. 
• The matter was dismissed by the trial court on the grounds as the suit was barred by the limitation period as per the Limitation Act, 1963. 
• The matter was appealed before the High Court by the appellant.  
• The High Court confirmed the order of the lower court and stated that 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 under the Portuguese law. 
• Aggrieved by the decision, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. 

Issues Involved 

• Whether the Portugues Civil code is a special law or local law for the State of Goa, Daman & Diu?  
• Whether the Portuguese Civil code impliedly held to be repealed? 

Observations 

• The Supreme Court (SC) in this case noted that LA is a statute enacting the provisions in general terms applicable to the entire country excepting the exception as mentioned in the statute itself. 
• The SC also noted that the Portuguese Civil Code assuming had its application in the State of Goa, Daman & Diu and an earlier statute thus stands altered. 
• The SC referred to the ruling of Justiniano Augusto De Piedada Barreto v. Antonio Vicente De Fonseca and Ors (1979) where it was held that the provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code relating to Limitation continue to be in force in the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu.  
• The SC overruled this judgement by applying the doctrine the implied repeal. 
• The SC held that there is one general law of limitation for the entire country and the Portuguese Civil law cannot be termed to be a local law or a special law applicable to the State of Goa, Daman & Diu prescribing a different period of limitation.  

Conclusion 

• The Supreme Court dismissed the present appeal. 
  • The Supreme Court held the Portugues Civil code repealed. 
  • The Supreme court also held that there shall be a uniform law of limitation i.e. the Limitation Act, 1963 that shall be applicable to whole of India.