Section 14 Limitation Act relief denied where due diligence and good faith were not proved, making the suit time-barred.

Exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act requires the claimant to prove that the earlier proceeding was prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith in a court unable to entertain it for want of jurisdiction or a like cause. Good faith under Section 2(h) requires due care and attention. The Bombay HC found that the earlier and later suits concerned the same subject matter, but the plaintiffs offered only a bare plea of good faith and due diligence, without particulars or oral evidence, and the documentary record did not establish due care and attention. The initial burden under Section 14 was therefore not discharged, and the suit was held barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit was barred by limitation and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to exclusion of time spent in the earlier City Civil Court proceeding under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

Analysis: The matter in issue in both suits was held to be the same, namely the defendants' entitlement to complete the construction of the structure and deal with the property. For claiming benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the plaintiffs had to establish that the earlier proceeding was prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith in a court unable to entertain it because of want of jurisdiction or a like cause. Good faith under Section 2(h) of the Limitation Act requires due care and attention. The amended plaint contained only a bare assertion of good faith and due diligence, but no particulars were supplied and no oral evidence was led. The documentary record was insufficient to prove that the earlier suit was instituted and prosecuted with due care and attention, and the initial burden to bring the case within Section 14 was not discharged.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs were not entitled to exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, and the suit was barred by limitation. The issue was answered against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendant.

---