https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456807 Limitation under Articles 58 and 113 ran for three years from accrual of the right to sue, so the plaint averment that the cause of action arose on 20.02.1992 made the suit time-barred when filed on 12.08.1996. Section 14 of the Limitation Act was unavailable because the plaintiff did not show due diligence and good faith in prosecuting a prior civil proceeding relating to the same matter in issue; a criminal writ petition did not qualify as a civil proceeding for this purpose, and the later execution application also did not establish bona fide prosecution. The revisional challenge succeeded, the preliminary finding on limitation was set aside, and the suit stood dismissed. en-us Mon, 26 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Aug 2024 18:17:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456807 Limitation under Articles 58 and 113 ran for three years from accrual of the right to sue, so the plaint averment that the cause of action arose on 20.02.1992 made the suit time-barred when filed on 12.08.1996. Section 14 of the Limitation Act was unavailable because the plaintiff did not show due diligence and good faith in prosecuting a prior civil proceeding relating to the same matter in issue; a criminal writ petition did not qualify as a civil proceeding for this purpose, and the later execution application also did not establish bona fide prosecution. The revisional challenge succeeded, the preliminary finding on limitation was set aside, and the suit stood dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 26 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456807