Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, for purposes of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the time to be excluded includes only the period during which an infructuous civil revision petition was actually pending in court, or also the period spent in taking the necessary preparatory steps to institute that revision petition.
Analysis: Section 14 uses broad language excluding the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding in good faith in a court unable to entertain it for defect of jurisdiction or a like cause. The expression is not confined to the bare period after formal presentation in court. Where a litigant is required to obtain copies and take other indispensable steps before filing the proceeding, that time also forms part of the prosecution of the civil proceeding, provided due diligence is shown. The language of the provision, its object of relieving a party from the consequences of fruitless litigation, and the earlier authorities supporting a liberal construction all show that no distinction can be drawn between preparatory steps and actual pendency in court. The contrary line of cases was rejected as resting on an unduly narrow reading of the section and its Explanation.
Conclusion: The entire period occupied in pursuing the infructuous civil revision petition, including the preparatory steps leading to its institution, is liable to be excluded under Section 14, subject to proof of due diligence and good faith.