Limitation Period Starts at Right to Sue: Court Discharges Rule with Costs

The court discharged the rule with costs, affirming that the limitation period starts when the plaintiff's right to sue arises, unless there is a clear waiver by accepting overdue instalments. The judgment clarified the interpretation of bond terms, the application of the Statute of Limitation, and the significance of waiver in affecting the right to sue for the whole amount.

---

---

Issues: Interpretation of bond terms regarding repayment, application of Statute of Limitation, waiver of right to sue for whole amount, distinction between suing for whole or separate instalments.

Issue 1: Interpretation of bond terms regarding repayment
The case involved a dispute over the interpretation of a bond for money borrowed by the defendant, with a provision stating that on failure to pay any instalment, the plaintiff could realize the entire amount immediately. The key question was whether the Statute of Limitation runs from the date of the first default instalment or from each instalment's due date. The judgment concluded that the plaintiff's right to sue begins when the first default occurs, unless there is evidence of waiver by accepting subsequent instalments after default.

Issue 2: Application of Statute of Limitation
The judgment relied on precedents to determine that the limitation period starts when the plaintiff first has the right to sue, unless there is a clear waiver by accepting overdue instalments. Mere abstinence from suing was held not to constitute waiver, emphasizing that waiver affecting limitation must involve payment and acceptance of overdue instalments.

Issue 3: Waiver of right to sue for whole amount
The argument that the bond allowed the plaintiff to choose between suing for the whole amount or separate instalments was dismissed by the court. It was established that there is no distinction between cases where the entire amount becomes due on default or where the plaintiff may sue for the whole amount. The crucial factor was determining the date when the plaintiff's right to bring the action arose, following the decision in Hurri Pershad Chowdhry v. Nasib Singh I.L.R. 1894 Calc. 542, consistent with English law authorities.

In conclusion, the court discharged the rule with costs, affirming that the limitation period starts when the plaintiff's right to sue arises, unless there is a clear waiver by accepting overdue instalments. The judgment clarified the interpretation of bond terms, the application of the Statute of Limitation, and the significance of waiver in affecting the right to sue for the whole amount.

---