1963 (4) TMI 73 - HC - Indian Laws

Appeal dismissed for lack of diligence in selecting jurisdiction, emphasizing timely prosecution and prudent behavior.

Firm Bansi Dhar Baldeo Pershad and Another Versus Firm Alopi Pershad and Sons Ltd.

Firm Bansi Dhar Baldeo Pershad and Another Versus Firm Alopi Pershad and Sons Ltd. - AIR 1963 P H 556 Issues:- Suit dismissed as barred by time- Exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act- Good faith in initiating the suit in a particular courtAnalysis:The judgment involves an appeal where the plaintiffs challenged the dismissal of their suit as barred by time. The suit was initially filed in the Court of a Civil Judge in U.P. on 31st August, 1950, but was later returned on jurisdictional grounds, leading to its re-presentation in the Civil Court at Delhi on 9th January, 1953. The defendant contended that the suit was time-barred, prompting the plaintiffs to rely on Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act to exclude the time spent in the Kheri Court.The lower court found against the plaintiffs on both issues raised. It held that the suit was indeed time-barred by one day, emphasizing the lack of evidence to prove diligent prosecution in the Kheri Court. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' reliance on acknowledgments to save the suit from limitation. On appeal, the appellants pointed out an endorsement on the returned documents indicating they were handed back on 8th January, 1953, not 7th January as previously assumed. This correction impacted the computation of time for limitation purposes.Regarding the applicability of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, the judgment scrutinized the plaintiffs' good faith in choosing the Kheri Court initially. The court highlighted the agreements between the parties specifying Delhi Courts as the jurisdiction for disputes, indicating a lack of due care by the plaintiffs in initiating the suit elsewhere. The judgment stressed the need for litigants to exercise diligence and caution, with exclusion of time under Section 14 reserved for those acting as reasonably prudent individuals.Ultimately, the court upheld the lower court's decision, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate good faith and due diligence in commencing the proceedings in Kheri. This finding rendered further discussion on the second issue unnecessary. The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs, as per the judgment delivered by the judges.