1. This suit has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. The learned Judge has in the first place mis-read the document and in the next place misapplied the law.
2. The document nowhere says that in case of default of payment of the first instalment the plaintiff was entitled to recover the entire amount. The words are that on the expiry of the term for payment of half the sum with interest and compound interest the creditor has a right to recover it.
3. That obviously means to recover the amount of first instalment with interest. It then goes on to say or to recover the entire amount after the expiry of the last term with interest and compound interest.
4. Obviously the right to recover the whole amount did not accrue till after the expiry of the date fixed for the second instalment.
5. The learned Judge apparently had in mind the cases of this Court under Article 132 of the Limitation Act which is applicable to mortgages. The bond in suit however was not a mortgage deed ab all. It was an instalment bond within the meaning of Article 75 of the Limitation Act. Under that Article it is open to the obligee to waive the benefit of the provision to recover the amount in the case of first default. He has done so and has brought his suit after a fresh default has been made. The suit is within three years of the time fixed, for the second payment 16 is accordingly within limitation. I may point out that each case is to be governed by the article applicable to it is made abundantly clear by the case of Gaya Prasad v. Sher Ali (1). The revision is accordingly allowed and the decree of the court below set aside and the claim decreed with costs in both Courts.
6. Revision allowed.