Limitation Act exclusion under Section 14 denied; Article 89 applied, and the later suit was time-barred.

Section 14 of the Limitation Act was unavailable because the earlier suit had been entertained and decided on merits, not rejected for want of jurisdiction or a similar defect; a proceeding so decided is still "entertained" for that provision. The prior suit failed because the relief claimed was not legally maintainable against the son of a deceased agent, so the exclusion of time was not attracted. Article 89 applied to the later suit by a principal against an agent for movable property received and not accounted for, even though the claim was not formally framed as one for accounts. As the suit was filed after the limitation period running from termination of the agency, it was barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff could claim exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act in respect of a prior suit that had been entertained and dismissed on merits as misconceived, and whether the subsequent suit was governed by Article 89 of the Limitation Act and therefore barred by limitation.

Analysis: Section 14 applies only where the earlier proceeding was prosecuted with due diligence in a court unable to entertain it for defect of jurisdiction or a cause of like nature. A proceeding that is admitted and decided on its merits is still 'entertained' within the meaning of that provision. Here, the earlier suit was not thrown out for want of jurisdiction or a similar formal defect, but because the relief claimed was not legally maintainable against the son of a deceased agent. Section 14 was therefore inapplicable. The later suit fell within Article 89, which governs suits by a principal against an agent for movable property received and not accounted for, and is not confined to suits formally framed as accounts claims. Since the suit was filed beyond the prescribed period counted from the termination of the agency, it was time-barred.

Conclusion: Section 14 of the Limitation Act was not available, Article 89 of the Limitation Act applied, and the suit was barred by limitation.

---