Aapka Consultant Judgment Series- In this series, we are providing case analysis of Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Deena (Dead) through LRs v. Bharat Singh (Dead) through LRs. & Ors
AIR 2002 SC 2768, [2002] 6 SCC 336
JUDGES: D.P. Mohapatra and K.G. Balakrishnan
Date of Decision: 29-07-2002
FACTS:-
Broad facts are, that the respondent-plaintiff, in the first instance, filed suit for declaration that he had become the owner of the suit property. A further relief was claimed to declare the order of the Collector for redemption of the suit property to be null and void. This suit was decreed. While the appeal of the appellant-defendant was pending in the court of the District Judge, the respondent withdrew the suit, with permission to file a fresh suit on the ground that there was a defect of non-joinder of a necessary party. Consequently, the earlier suit was withdrawn. In the second suit filed by the respondent, more or less, the same reliefs were sought. In the written statement, the appellant took the plea that the fresh suit was barred by limitation. The suit was decreed. In the second appeal filed by the plaintiffs the High Court set aside the judgment of the first appellate court confirming the decision of the trial court and decreed the suit on ground within time limitation. Thus, appeal is filed against the impugned order of the High Court.
ISSUES:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the benefit under S.14 of the Limitation Act?
(2) Whether the plaintiff prosecuted the proceedings with due diligence and in good faith?
JUDGMENT:-
The main factor influenced the Hon’ble Supreme Court in extending the benefit of S.14 of Act, to a litigant was whether the prior proceeding had been prosecuted with due diligence and good faith. The party prosecuting the suit in good faith in the court having no jurisdiction is entitled to exclusion of that period. It was, in this context, that the court noted the provisions of not only S.14 (1) and (3) but also those of Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code which, inter alia, provides that qua any fresh suit instituted on permission granted under the last preceding rule, the plaintiff shall be bound by the law of limitation in the same manner as if, the first suit had not been instituted.
The Supreme Court figured out the distinction between granting permission to the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with leave to file a fresh suit for the same cause under Order 23 Rule 1 and exclusion of the period of pendency of that suit for the purpose of computation of limitation in the subsequent suit under S.14 of the Act. On interpreting the phrase “or other cause of a like nature” are to be construed ejusdem generis with the words “defect of jurisdiction”. That is to say, S.14 will have no application in the case where the suit was dismissed after adjudication on its merits and not because the court was unable to entertain it.
In the present case it does not appear from the discussions in the impugned judgment that there was any finding of the court in the previous suit holding the suit to be not entertainable on any ground. Non-joinder of a necessary party in the suit was a clear case of laches on the part of the plaintiffs. Despite such objection taken in the written statement, plaintiffs chose to prosecute. Thus, in such circumstances, it could not be said that the plaintiffs were prosecuting the previous suit in good faith. Consequently, benefit of S. 14 will be not being granted. Hence, allowed appeal.
HELD:-
Therefore held, the trial court and the first appellate court were right in holding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to exclusion of the period under S.14 of the act as claimed, and that the suit was barred by the limitation.
To Get Legal Opinion from Advocates/ Legal Experts, Please click here
To Get Legal Opinion from Retired Hon’ble Judges, Please click here
