Good-faith prosecution in the wrong forum must be shown to exclude time under limitation law; jurisdiction clause defeated relief.

Exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act requires proof that the earlier proceeding was prosecuted in good faith and with due diligence, meaning with due care and attention by a reasonably prudent litigant. Applying that test, the court found that the parties' agreement confined jurisdiction to Delhi courts, so filing the suit at Kheri could not be treated as a bona fide mistake. The plaintiffs therefore failed to satisfy the statutory conditions for Section 14 relief, and the suit remained barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the time spent in prosecuting the suit in a court lacking jurisdiction could be excluded under Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act on the footing that the plaintiffs had acted in good faith and with due diligence.

Analysis: Section 14 applies only where the party seeking its benefit shows that the earlier proceeding in the wrong court was prosecuted in good faith, meaning with due care and attention, and with due diligence. The decisive test is whether the mistake in approaching the wrong forum was one a reasonably prudent litigant, acting with caution and attention, could have made. On the facts, the agreement between the parties clearly confined jurisdiction to Delhi courts. In those circumstances, instituting the suit at Kheri could not be treated as a bona fide mistake made with due care, and the plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of bringing themselves within the section.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs were not entitled to exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, and the suit remained barred by limitation.

---