2016 (1) TMI 1390 - HC - Indian Laws

Court sets aside trial court's decision on limitation, remits matter for fresh adjudication.

Anil Bhasin Versus Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. And Ors.

Anil Bhasin Versus Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. And Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the suit was barred by limitation.2. Whether the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 were correctly applied by the trial court.Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the suit was barred by limitation:The trial court summarily allowed the application filed by respondent no.3 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, concluding that the suit was barred by limitation. The appellant argued that the period of limitation could only be determined after the suit had been put to trial, as it involved a mixed question of fact and law. The trial court, however, did not discuss whether the suit was within limitation on its own strength without relying on Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The appellant claimed that the cause of action was continuing as the payments had not been released by the respondents. The court found that the trial court's judgment was flawed on this count, as it did not consider the assertions made by the appellant regarding the continuing cause of action and the plea taken by respondents no.1 and 2 that they would pay the pending bills once they were released by respondent no.3.2. Whether the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 were correctly applied by the trial court:Section 14 of the Limitation Act permits the exclusion of time spent in prosecuting another civil proceeding with due diligence, provided it relates to the 'same matter in issue' and was prosecuted in good faith in a court that was unable to entertain it due to 'defect of jurisdiction' or 'other cause of like nature.' The trial court held that the benefit of Section 14 was not available to the appellant as the writ petition and the suit did not relate to the same matter in issue, and the writ petition was not dismissed due to a defect in jurisdiction. The appellant argued that both actions related to the non-payment of monies for work executed, and the writ petition was withdrawn due to the nature of the issues involved, which were more appropriate for a civil proceeding.The court found that the trial court's interpretation was too narrow. The expression 'same matter in issue' in Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act does not require complete identity of reliefs or causes of action but rather a broad similarity in the matters in issue. The court concluded that both the writ petition and the suit related to the same issue of non-payment for work executed, and the writ petition was withdrawn because a civil proceeding was more appropriate for resolving the disputed questions of fact. The court also noted that Section 14 should be construed liberally to cover defects that are not strictly jurisdictional but are similar in nature.The court referenced several Supreme Court judgments that supported a liberal interpretation of Section 14, including Roshan Lal Kuthalia Vs. R.B. Mohan Singh Oberoi, Union of India vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd., and Shakti Tubes Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., which held that time spent in prosecuting a writ petition could be excluded under Section 14 if the writ petition was prosecuted in good faith.Conclusion:The court set aside the impugned judgment and decree, allowing the appeal. The trial court was directed to take up the suit for adjudication from its current position, with parties and their counsel to appear before the trial court on a specified date. No orders as to costs were made, and the Registry was instructed to remit the record to the trial court.