Limitation as a jurisdictional objection must be decided first; exclusion of time requires proof of due diligence and good faith.

A plea of limitation raised under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure is a jurisdictional objection that must be decided at the threshold, and a suit barred on the pleadings cannot proceed to merits where no further evidence is needed. The Court also held that exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act requires the claimant to prove due diligence and good faith in the earlier proceeding, and mere amendment of the plaint is insufficient. As no oral evidence was led to establish those requirements, the later suit remained time-barred and the dismissal of the suit was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a plea of limitation can be decided as a preliminary issue of jurisdiction under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) Whether the appellants were entitled to exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Issue (i): Whether a plea of limitation can be decided as a preliminary issue of jurisdiction under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Analysis: The Court followed the larger Bench view that a plea of limitation is a plea of law touching the jurisdiction of the court to proceed. Once limitation is specifically raised under Section 9A, the court is required to decide that objection at the threshold. The Court distinguished the authorities relied on by the appellants and held that a suit barred by limitation cannot be entertained on merits, and no further evidence was necessary where the pleadings themselves showed the bar.

Conclusion: The plea of limitation was rightly treated as a preliminary jurisdictional issue under Section 9A, and this contention was against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants were entitled to exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963

Analysis: The Court held that the burden lay on the plaintiffs to prove that the earlier proceeding had been prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith. Mere amendment of the plaint was insufficient. As no oral evidence was led to establish good faith and due diligence, the requirements for Section 14 were not satisfied. On the face of the plaint, the later suit was also beyond limitation.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to the benefit of Section 14, and this contention also failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both limitation and Section 14 issues, leaving the dismissal of the suit undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A plea of limitation, when raised under Section 9A, is a jurisdictional objection that must be decided at the threshold, and a party seeking exclusion of time under Section 14 must prove due diligence and good faith by evidence.

---