High Court overturns District Judge's ruling, remands case for trial. Parties bear own costs. Key statutes: Marwar Limitation Act, Rajasthan Limitation Act.

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the District Judge's judgment, and remanded the case for trial on the remaining issues. Each party was directed to bear their own costs in the High Court, with costs in the trial court to abide by the event. The court's decision was based on the correct interpretation of Section 4 of the Marwar Limitation (Amendment) Act, 1949, granting the plaintiffs the benefit of the saving provision and considering the applicability of Section 9 of the Rajasthan Limitation Act (Adaptation) Ordinance, 1950, and Section 30 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Limitation of the plaintiffs' suit.
2. Interpretation of Section 4 of the Marwar Limitation (Amendment) Act, 1949.
3. Applicability of Section 9 of the Rajasthan Limitation Act (Adaptation) Ordinance, 1950.
4. Applicability of Section 30 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Limitation of the Plaintiffs' Suit:
The plaintiffs' suit was dismissed by the District Judge, Balotra, as being barred by limitation. The plaintiffs' suit was based on money dealings with the defendant's father and was filed on January 23, 1952. The trial court concluded that the suit was barred by limitation under the Marwar Limitation (Amendment) Act, 1949, which reduced the limitation period from six years to three years.

2. Interpretation of Section 4 of the Marwar Limitation (Amendment) Act, 1949:
The primary issue was the interpretation of Section 4 of the Marwar Limitation (Amendment) Act, 1949. Two interpretations were considered:
- The trial court's interpretation, which limited the saving provision to suits already barred at the commencement of the Act.
- The plaintiffs' interpretation, which suggested that the saving provision should apply to suits that would be barred at the time of their institution under the new Act.

The court concluded that the correct interpretation of Section 4 should include the words "at the time of its institution" after "would be barred." This interpretation avoids hardship and injustice, ensuring that suits not barred at the commencement of the Act but barred soon after its enforcement are also given the benefit of the saving provision.

3. Applicability of Section 9 of the Rajasthan Limitation Act (Adaptation) Ordinance, 1950:
Section 9 of the Rajasthan Limitation Act (Adaptation) Ordinance, 1950, was considered. This section provided a grace period for suits where the new limitation period was shorter than the previous one. The court held that the period prescribed by the Act of 1950 was shorter than the period allowed under the old Marwar law, making the plaintiffs eligible for the grace period under Section 9.

4. Applicability of Section 30 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908:
Section 30 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, applied to Part B States. This section provided a grace period of two years after the commencement of the Act or the previous period, whichever expired first. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' suit, filed on January 23, 1952, was within the grace period allowed by Section 30.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the District Judge, and remanded the case for trial on the remaining issues. The court directed that each party bear their own costs in the High Court, with costs in the trial court to abide by the event.

---