Liberal Section 14 exclusion of prior writ petition time kept the suit within limitation.

Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applied liberally to exclude time spent in a prior civil proceeding prosecuted with due diligence and good faith, where the earlier forum could not entertain the matter for defect of jurisdiction or a cause of like nature. The same dispute over price escalation was pursued first by writ petition, which was bona fide, partly admitted, and not rejected at the threshold; that period was therefore excluded in computing limitation. Section 80 CPC notice was also relevant to the limitation calculation. The limitation objection accordingly failed, and the suit was held to be within time.

---

---

Issues: Whether the time spent in prosecuting a writ petition could be excluded while computing limitation for the suit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: Section 14 applies where a litigant has prosecuted another civil proceeding with due diligence and in good faith in a forum unable to entertain it because of defect of jurisdiction or a cause of a like nature. The expression "other cause of a like nature" is to be construed liberally, and the provision is not confined to a strict want of jurisdiction. On the facts, the writ petition concerned the same dispute over escalation of price, was filed bona fide, was partly admitted, and was not thrown out at the threshold. The time spent in that proceeding therefore had to be excluded. The statutory notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also relevant to limitation computation.

Conclusion: The period spent in pursuing the writ petition was liable to be excluded under Section 14, and the suit was within limitation.

Final Conclusion: The limitation objection failed, and the decree in favour of the appellant was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies liberally to exclude time spent in a bona fide and diligent prior proceeding concerning the same matter in issue, even where the earlier proceeding was not rejected for a formal defect of jurisdiction but could not be entertained for a cause akin to jurisdictional inability.

---