Limitation law did not revive a time-barred restitution suit after repeal of the earlier Act.

A suit for restitution of conjugal rights that had already become time-barred under the Limitation Act, 1877 was not revived by the repeal of that Act and the commencement of the Limitation Act, 1908. The expired remedy remained extinguished because the repeal did not operate to restore a right or remedy no longer in force, and the saving effect of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 prevented such revival. The earlier Act's own saving provision reflected the same principle. The suit therefore continued to be barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, already barred under the Limitation Act, 1877, was revived by the repeal of that Act and the coming into force of the Limitation Act, 1908.

Analysis: The limitation period for the remedy had expired under Section 4 and Article 35 of the Limitation Act, 1877 before the new Act came into force. The repeal of the earlier Act did not revive the barred remedy, because Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 preserves the effect of a repeal and prevents revival of something not in force at the time of repeal. The special saving provision in Section 2 of the Limitation Act, 1877 reflected the same principle. The change in the law did not merely alter procedure in a pending-liability situation, but attempted to restore a remedy that had already become extinguished by lapse of time.

Conclusion: The suit remained barred and was not revived by the Limitation Act, 1908; dismissal of the suit was .

---