Section 14 limitation relief requires proven due diligence and good faith; failure to show both defeats exclusion of time.

Section 14 of the Limitation Act applies only where the plaintiff affirmatively proves that the earlier proceeding was prosecuted with due diligence and good faith, arose from the same cause of action, and failed because the first court lacked jurisdiction or faced a like defect. The Court found those foundational requirements were not established: the plaint did not properly state the subject-matter value, and there was no evidence of due diligence during the long pendency of the earlier suit. Good faith, meaning due care and attention, was therefore not shown, so exclusion of time was denied and the suit was barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff was entitled to exclusion of time under section 14 of the Limitation Act for the prior suit filed in the wrong court, and whether the suit in the District Judge's Court was therefore within limitation.

Analysis: Section 14 requires the plaintiff to establish that the earlier proceeding was prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith, that it was founded on the same cause of action, and that the earlier court was unable to entertain it because of defect of jurisdiction or a like cause. The Court held that the plaintiff failed to discharge this burden. The omission to state the value of the subject-matter in the plaint, contrasted with the earlier similar suit, and the absence of evidence showing due diligence in the long pendency of the former proceeding, negatived the claim to exclusion of time. The definition of good faith in the Limitation Act, requiring due care and attention, was applied.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to the benefit of section 14, and the suit was barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: A party seeking exclusion of time under section 14 of the Limitation Act must affirmatively prove due diligence and good faith, as defined by due care and attention, and the burden does not shift to the defendant unless those foundational requirements are first established.

---