TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Plaintiff's Suit Dismissed Due to Limitation Act Violation</h1> The court concluded that the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation as the plaintiff did not meet the conditions required to invoke Section 14 of the ... - Issues Involved:1. Limitation period for filing the suit.2. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.3. Good faith and due diligence in prosecuting the previous suit.4. Pecuniary jurisdiction of the court.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Limitation Period for Filing the Suit:The primary issue revolves around whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by the limitation period. The plaintiff initially filed the suit on January 31, 1929, which was the last permissible day under the limitation period. The suit was later re-presented to the District Judge at Miraj on July 4, 1940, after being returned by the Munsiff's Court due to pecuniary jurisdiction issues. The appellants argued that the suit, upon re-presentation, was barred by limitation. The court concluded that the suit was indeed barred by limitation as the plaintiff did not meet the conditions required to invoke Section 14 of the Limitation Act.2. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act:Section 14 of the Limitation Act allows for the exclusion of the time during which the plaintiff was prosecuting another civil proceeding with due diligence and in good faith in a court that lacked jurisdiction. The plaintiff argued that he should be given the benefit of Section 14, which would make the suit within the limitation period. However, the court found that the plaintiff did not satisfy the conditions required under Section 14, specifically due diligence and good faith. Therefore, the benefit of Section 14 was not granted, leading to the conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation.3. Good Faith and Due Diligence in Prosecuting the Previous Suit:The court examined whether the plaintiff prosecuted the previous suit in good faith and with due diligence. The plaintiff failed to show affirmative evidence of due diligence and good faith. The court noted that the plaintiff knew the value of the properties exceeded the jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court but still filed the suit there. The court also observed that the plaintiff's omission to mention the value of the properties in the plaint was not done with due care and attention. The plaintiff's actions were not considered to be in good faith as per the definition under the Indian Limitation Act, which requires actions to be done with due care and attention.4. Pecuniary Jurisdiction of the Court:The plaintiff initially filed the suit in the Munsiff's Court, which lacked pecuniary jurisdiction over the matter. The plaintiff later moved the court for the return of the plaint on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction after the dismissal of a similar suit (Tikoni suit) in another court. The court found that the plaintiff was aware of the pecuniary jurisdiction issue from the beginning and did not act with due care and attention. This lack of due diligence and good faith in addressing the pecuniary jurisdiction issue contributed to the court's decision to deny the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.Conclusion:The court concluded that the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation as the plaintiff did not meet the conditions required to invoke Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiff failed to show due diligence and good faith in prosecuting the previous suit, and the initial filing in a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction was not done with due care and attention. Therefore, the appeals were allowed, and the suit was dismissed with costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
