Statutory bar to suit remains fatal despite later instalment provisions or pending-proceeding rules.

A suit filed in breach of an express statutory bar is not maintainable, even where the prohibition is framed as procedural. Section 4(4) of the Madras Indebted Agriculturists Repayment of Debts Act, 1955 applies only to suits otherwise maintainable and pending at the commencement of that Act, and does not validate a suit that was liable to dismissal. Likewise, Section 4(1) of the 1954 Temporary Relief Act governs pending proceedings and does not prevent dismissal of a suit instituted contrary to Section 3. The later date of disposal does not change the suit's defective character.

---

---

Issues: Whether a suit instituted in contravention of the statutory bar under Section 3 of the Madras Indebted Agriculturists' Temporary Relief Act, Act V of 1954 was liable to be dismissed, and whether the later provisions of Section 4 of the Madras Indebted Agriculturists Repayment of Debts Act, Act I of 1955 or Section 4 of Act V of 1954 required the suit to be kept pending or decided by instalments.

Analysis: A claim instituted in violation of an express statutory prohibition could not be treated as maintainable merely because the prohibition related to procedure. The rule applied with equal force to a procedural bar and to other legal bars such as limitation. Section 4(4) of Act I of 1955 governed the mode of payment in suits that were otherwise maintainable and pending at the commencement of that Act; it did not revive or validate a suit that was itself liable to dismissal. Likewise, Section 4(1) of Act V of 1954 applied to proceedings pending when that Act came into force and did not prevent dismissal of a suit filed in breach of Section 3. The later date of disposal did not alter the character of the suit or the court's power to dismiss it.

Conclusion: The suit, having been instituted in contravention of Section 3, was rightly dismissed, and the revisional challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A suit instituted in violation of an express statutory bar is liable to be dismissed, and later provisions regulating instalment payment or pending proceedings do not cure that defect or compel continuation of the suit.

---