Exclusion of time under Section 14 for bona fide proceedings in the wrong forum may cure delay and protect substantive justice.

Time spent in bona fide prosecution of proceedings before an inappropriate forum is excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 when the party has acted diligently and in good faith. The provision is applied on an equitable basis to prevent a litigant from being prejudiced by pursuing a remedy in the wrong forum. A missing supporting affidavit to the interlocutory application was treated as a curable procedural irregularity, not a fatal defect, because substantive justice and natural justice considerations favoured allowing the defect to be remedied separately.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned by excluding the time spent in bona fide prosecution of proceedings before an inappropriate forum under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The period spent in pursuing modification and writ proceedings was treated as bona fide litigious activity. Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was held applicable where a party diligently prosecutes a remedy in a wrong or inappropriate forum, and the equity underlying the provision requires exclusion of such time. The absence of a supporting affidavit to the interlocutory application was treated as a curable procedural irregularity, not a fatal defect, having regard to the principles of natural justice and the tribunal's power to regulate its procedure.

Conclusion: The delay stood condoned by applying Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the interlocutory application was disposed of in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was treated as filed within limitation after exclusion of the relevant period, while the procedural defect regarding affidavit filing was directed to be cured separately.

Ratio Decidendi: Time spent in bona fide prosecution of proceedings before a wrong forum is liable to be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 if the party acted diligently and in good faith, and a curable procedural lapse should not defeat substantive justice.

---