Limitation and review principles: Section 19 and Section 14 relief rejected, and prior findings on delayed-payment interest left undisturbed.

Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies only where the last payment is made before expiry of limitation and the requisite acknowledgment facts are specifically pleaded; on the pleaded case, that benefit was unavailable and the suit remained time-barred. Section 14 exclusion also failed because the earlier proceedings were not prosecuted by the same party in a proceeding hit by want of jurisdiction or a similar defect. The review challenge to interest under the 1993 delayed payments law and to maintainability of the connected appeal disclosed no error apparent, as the issues had already been decided on merits and could not be reopened in review.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit could be saved from limitation by invoking Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963; (ii) whether the petitioner was entitled to exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963; (iii) whether the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 operated retroactively so as to confer interest on supplies made before its commencement; (iv) whether any error apparent existed in the earlier finding on maintainability of the connected civil appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the suit could be saved from limitation by invoking Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: Section 19 requires payment before expiry of the prescribed period and an acknowledgment of such payment in the manner required by the provision. The plaint did not plead a fresh starting point of limitation on the basis of the last payment, nor did it plead the necessary acknowledgment facts to attract the provision. The suit was pleaded on the footing that the Limitation Act did not apply because of the 1993 Act, and the cause of action was not founded on Section 19.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of Section 19, and the suit remained barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: Section 14 applies only where the same party has been prosecuting another proceeding with due diligence and in good faith in a court lacking jurisdiction or facing a like defect. The earlier writ proceeding had been filed by an association, not by the plaintiff in the suit, and the later writ appeal also showed that the statutory conditions for exclusion were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to exclusion of time under Section 14.

Issue (iii): Whether the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 operated retroactively so as to confer interest on supplies made before its commencement.

Analysis: The earlier judgment had already examined the effect of the 1993 Act and held that no factual basis had been shown to establish supplies after commencement so as to attract interest under Sections 3 and 4. In review, the Court reiterated that matters already decided on merits cannot be reopened unless an error apparent is shown.

Conclusion: No ground was made out to disturb the earlier finding that the petitioner was not entitled to interest under the 1993 Act on the pleaded facts.

Issue (iv): Whether any error apparent existed in the earlier finding on maintainability of the connected civil appeal.

Analysis: The review challenge rested on the premise that the appeal against the review judgment was maintainable and that the earlier withdrawal did not bar further challenge. The review judgment, however, had not granted the substantive relief under the 1993 Act, and the Court found no error apparent in its earlier view on maintainability.

Conclusion: No reviewable error was established on the question of maintainability.

Final Conclusion: The review petitions failed to disclose any error apparent on the face of the record and sought, in substance, a rehearing of issues already decided; the earlier judgment therefore remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim to extend limitation under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 must be specifically pleaded and supported by the requisite acknowledgment facts, and review cannot be used to reargue questions already conclusively decided on merits.

---