1963 (4) TMI 73

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at Khen had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that it were Delhi Courts which alone could entertain the suit. This order is said to have been passed on 7th January 1953, and the plaint was re-presented in the Civil Court at Delhi on 9th January, 1953. 3. The suit was resisted by the defendant inter alia on the plea of limitation. The plaintiffs m reply relied on Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act urging that the time during which the suit in the Kheri Court was prosecuted should be excluded. 4. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following two issues : 1. Is it a fit case for exclusion of the time from 31st August, 1950, to 9th January, 1953, from computation for limitation purposes under Section 14 of the Indian L....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... have to be considered after excluding this period, provided Section 14 is applicable. 7. Coming to the applicability of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act it appears to me that the plaintiffs have not shown good faith in initially instituting the suit in the Court at Kheri. The onus of bringing his case within the purview of this Section is on the party claiming its benefit and it is clearly incumbent on him to show that the mistake or error committed by him is not the result of absence of good faith but has been occasioned in spite of due care and attention having been devoted by him. It is of course riot possible to lay down any hard and fast rule for excluding time under this station : however a fair working rule by and large acce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e suit at Kheri "in good faith" which has been defined by the Indian Limitation Act to mean "with due care and attention". The argument that the proprietors of the plaintiff-firm did not know about the terms of the agreements would also suggest that the plaintiffs did not pay due attention or devote due care to the matter., This contention, therefore, instead of helping the appellants would seem to go against them. I am not unmindful of the position that normally speaking Section 14, Indian Limitation Act, should be liberally construed and trials on merits of controversies should not be shut out on unsubstantial or technical grounds. I am, further aware that unlike Section 5 of the Limitation Act, Section 14 is couched i....