TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 1164
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was decreed by learned Munsiff, First Class Hiranagar, in favour of the Plaintiff, and the Defendants were directed to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the property to the Plaintiff. This decree was challenged by the Respondents before the learned District Judge, Kathua, in First Appeal, which came to be dismissed on 09.02.1990. Thereafter, the Respondents preferred a Second Appeal before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir which came to be dismissed vide Order dated 09.11.2000. No further appeal was preferred. Therefore, the decree of the learned Munsiff Court attained finality on 09.11.2000. 4. The present lis arises from the application for execution filed by the predecessor in interest of the Plaintiff, before the learned Tehsildar (Settlement), Hiranagar on 18.12.2000. This application came to be rejected on 29.01.2005, whereby the learned Tehsildar observed that the Plaintiff had not applied before the Court with appropriate jurisdiction. 5. The Plaintiff thereafter, on 03.10.2005 preferred a fresh application for execution before the Court of Munsiff, Hiranagar. This application resulted in the order dated 28.11.2007, whereby, the learned Munsiff Court dismissed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in pursuing the proceedings before the Tehsildar is required to be excluded, has been recorded and rejected by the High Court. 14. It was finally held vide the Impugned Order that the dismissal of the execution petition is well reasoned and, therefore, cannot be interfered with. However, while disposing off the revision, the Court observed that the State Code of Civil Procedure is required to be brought to 12 years. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant/Plaintiff 15. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff has submitted that the reasoning of the learned High Court that the Plaintiff had chosen a wrong forum and is not entitled to exclusion of time runs, contrary to the law laid down by this Court that the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are meant for grant of relief, where a person has committed some mistake and such provisions should be applied in a broad manner. Furthermore, the provision of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is para materia to the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, as applicable to the then State of Jammu and Kashmir. 16. The Plaintiff has sought to place reliance on the judgment of this Court in Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dismissed vide the impugned order. This Court in M.P. Steel (Supra) has reiterated that 'due diligence' and 'good faith' means that the party who invokes Section 14 is not guilty of negligence, lapse or inaction. Issue before this Court 24. In view of the submissions raised, the issue which arises for consideration of this Court is as to whether the period (18.12.2000 to 29.01.2005) diligently pursuing execution petition before the Tehsildar, would be excluded for the purposes of computing the period of limitation or not. Analysis & Consideration 25. The relevant portion of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is extracted as under, for ready reference: "Section 14. Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction. ... ... (2) In computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....than aborts the proceedings at hand and the time taken diligently pursuing a remedy, in a wrong Court, should be excluded. 32. In the present case, it is not in dispute that:- (i) Both the proceedings are civil in nature and have been prosecuted by the Plaintiff or the predecessor in interest. (ii) The failure of the execution proceedings was due to a defect of jurisdiction. (iii) Both the proceedings pertain to execution of the decree dated 10.12.1986, which attains finality on 09.11.2000. (iv) Both the proceedings are in a court. 33. The only objection pointed out by the Respondent to the ingredients for invocation of Section 14, is that the Plaintiff have not approached this Court with clean hands and did not approach the Court of the Tehsildar diligently and in good faith. 34. The judgment of this Court in M.P. Steel (Supra) discussed the phrases, "due diligence" and "in good faith" for the purposes of invocation of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. While considering the application of Section 14 to the Customs Act, it was observed: "10. We might also point out that Conditions 1 to 4 mentioned in the Consolidated Engg. case [(2008) 7 SCC 169] have, in fact, been me....