Limitation exclusion for prior suit time upheld where the earlier proceeding failed on a defect akin to jurisdiction.

Section 14(1) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 permits exclusion of time spent in a prior civil proceeding when that proceeding was pursued with due diligence and good faith, based on the same cause of action, and failed because the court could not entertain it for defect of jurisdiction or a like cause. The Court treated the infirmity in the earlier money suit as analogous to a jurisdictional defect because the claim could not be effectively adjudicated in that form, and read "other cause of a like nature" liberally. The plaintiffs were therefore entitled to exclude the earlier period, and the claim for future mesne profits was not barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to exclude the time spent in the earlier money suit under Section 14(1) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, so as to save the present claim for future mesne profits from the bar of limitation.

Analysis: Section 14(1) permits exclusion of time spent in prosecuting another civil proceeding where that proceeding was founded on the same cause of action, prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith, and failed because the court was unable to entertain it from defect of jurisdiction or a cause of a like nature. The earlier suit had included the same claim, and the court had granted relief, but the High Court later held that such a decree could not be maintained in a pure money suit. That infirmity was treated as analogous to defect of jurisdiction because the claim could not be adjudicated on the merits in that form. The provision was read liberally, consistent with the settled approach that its expression "other cause of a like nature" covers defects which prevent the court from proceeding to a merits determination. The separate opinion, while doubting the claim on the bare wording of the section, agreed that the long-settled principle recognising a fresh cause of action after an earlier decree is set aside supported the same result.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs were entitled to the benefit of Section 14(1), and the suit was not barred by limitation.

---