Case title: Purni Devi & Anr. Vs Babu Ram & Anr.
Case no.: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.17665 of 2018
Decision on: April 2nd, 2024
Quoram: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Aravind Kumar
Facts of the case
The predecessors in interest of the Appellant (Plaintiff) filed a suit for possession against the Respondents (Defendants). In 1986, this suit 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 District Judge, Kathua, in First Appeal, which was dismissed in 1990. Subsequently, the Second appeal preferred by the respondents was also dismissed and no further appeal was preferred. In 2000, the decree of the learned Munsiff Court attained finality on 09.11.2000.
The dispute arose from the application for execution filed by the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff, before the Tehsildar (Settlement). However, in 2005, the Tehsildar while rejecting the application observed that the plaintiff had not applied before the Court with appropriate jurisdiction. The plaintiff thereafter, preferred a fresh application for execution before the Munsiff. This application resulted in the order, whereby, the Munsiff Court through an impugned judgement dismissed the application as being barred by limitation.
Submissions on behalf of the Plaintiff
The Counsel 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 was contrary to the law laid down by this Court which stated 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. Moreover, he quoted various authorities and expounded that the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act are to advance the cause of justice and must be interpreted to do so rather than abort proceedings. He submitted that the Plaintiff acting in good faith is entitled for exclusion of time consumed in pursuing their remedy before the learned Tehsildar, in view of Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondent
The Counsel, on the contrary submitted that the Plaintiff was taking the plea for the first time before this Court and did not raise the plea of Section 14 of the Limitation Act before the Courts below. He submitted that it was deliberate act of wilful disobedience by the Plaintiff’s end and hence the plea under of Section 14 of the Limitation Act cannot be entertained. The Counsel thus stated that the Plaintiff had concealed the fact on their non-appearance in the second appeal and approached the Courts without clean hands.
Issue – 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?
Court’s Analysis and Judgement
The Court in adjudicating the above issue delved into the intricacies of Section 14 of the Limitation Act and noted that it provided an exception for excluding the period of limitation when the proceedings are being pursued with due diligence and good faith in a Court. It relied on the decision of Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Principle Secy which laid down five important aspects while upholding the exclusion of time period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly, the Bench noted the points in view of the instant proceedings –
- Both the prior and subsequent proceedings are civil proceedings prosecuted by the same party;
- The prior proceeding had been prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith;
- The failure of the prior proceeding was due to defect of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature;
- The earlier proceeding and the latter proceeding must relate to the same matter in issue; and
- Both the proceedings are in a court.
The Court observed that there was no substantial averment on record to prove the malafide intention of the plaintiff and thus, held that the plaintiff pursued the matter bonafidely and diligently and in good faith before the appropriate forum and such time period is bound to be excluded when computing limitation before the Court having competent jurisdiction. Therefore, all conditions stipulated for invocation of Section 14 of the Limitation Act are fulfilled. Accordingly, it allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of High Court
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K
