https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277217 Section 14 of the Limitation Act applies only where the plaintiff affirmatively proves that the earlier proceeding was prosecuted with due diligence and good faith, arose from the same cause of action, and failed because the first court lacked jurisdiction or faced a like defect. The Court found those foundational requirements were not established: the plaint did not properly state the subject-matter value, and there was no evidence of due diligence during the long pendency of the earlier suit. Good faith, meaning due care and attention, was therefore not shown, so exclusion of time was denied and the suit was barred by limitation. en-us Fri, 18 Apr 1958 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Nov 2018 12:04:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277217 Section 14 of the Limitation Act applies only where the plaintiff affirmatively proves that the earlier proceeding was prosecuted with due diligence and good faith, arose from the same cause of action, and failed because the first court lacked jurisdiction or faced a like defect. The Court found those foundational requirements were not established: the plaint did not properly state the subject-matter value, and there was no evidence of due diligence during the long pendency of the earlier suit. Good faith, meaning due care and attention, was therefore not shown, so exclusion of time was denied and the suit was barred by limitation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 18 Apr 1958 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277217