Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the suit was barred by limitation and whether the plaintiff was entitled to exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Analysis: The reliefs sought were governed by Article 58 for declaration and Article 113 for injunction, each prescribing a three-year period from the date when the right to sue accrued. On the plaint averments, the cause of action arose on 20.02.1992, so the limitation period expired on 20.02.1995, while the suit was filed only on 12.08.1996. Section 14 could not be applied because the plaintiff did not show due diligence and good faith in prosecuting another civil proceeding relating to the same matter in issue. The criminal writ petition was not a civil proceeding for this purpose, and the subsequent execution application also did not establish the required bona fide, diligent prosecution.
Conclusion: The suit was barred by limitation and the plaintiff was not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge succeeded on the limitation issue, the impugned finding on preliminary issue No.1 was set aside, and the suit stood dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Limitation under Articles 58 and 113 runs from accrual of the right to sue, and exclusion under Section 14 is available only where the earlier proceeding is a civil proceeding prosecuted with due diligence and good faith in a court unable to entertain it for defect of jurisdiction or like cause.