Condonation of delay and Section 14 exclusion required a full explanation of delay before limitation rights could be displaced.

Section 95(3) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 was treated as prescribing a short limitation period, and the claimant had to explain the entire delay before condonation could be granted. Time spent bona fide prosecuting the civil proceedings was excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, but the period from the notice to the filing of the civil suit still required a satisfactory explanation. As no adequate explanation covered the full delay, the opposing party's accrued limitation right could not be defeated, and refusal to condone the delay was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in initiating proceedings under Section 95(3) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 could be condoned on the basis that the claimant had bona fide prosecuted the matter before the civil court and the intervening period was excludable under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

Analysis: The period during which the claimant bona fide prosecuted the civil proceedings stood excluded, but the delay from the date of the notice until the filing of the civil suit still required a proper explanation. The limitation prescribed under Section 95(3) was short, and in the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the entire delay, the right accruing to the opposite party under the law of limitation could not be defeated. On that footing, refusal to condone the delay was justified.

Conclusion: The refusal to condone the delay was upheld and the special leave petition failed.

---