1958 (10) TMI 39 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Limitation period for filing the suit.
2. Applicability of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act.
3. Good faith in prosecuting the earlier appeal.
4. Identity of cause of action in earlier and present proceedings.
5. Defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Limitation Period for Filing the Suit:
The primary contention in the appeal was whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by time. The trial court had dismissed the suit, holding it barred by limitation under Article 11-A of the Indian Limitation Act, as it was not filed within one year of the summary order dated 18-9-1948.

2. Applicability of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act:
The appellants claimed the benefit of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act, which allows exclusion of the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting another civil proceeding in good faith. The trial Judge had found that the plaintiffs prosecuted Miscellaneous Appeal No. 206 of 1948 in good faith but denied the benefit for the period from 17-12-1949 to 23-3-1950 due to late payment of paper book costs. The High Court disagreed with this view, stating that the exclusion of time should not be denied based on such technicalities, especially when the court had condoned the delay.

3. Good Faith in Prosecuting the Earlier Appeal:
The trial court had found that the plaintiffs prosecuted the appeal in good faith. The High Court upheld this finding, stating that the question of good faith is a finding of fact, which should not be disturbed except for strong reasons. The respondents' challenge based on the non-appealability of the order under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code was not sufficient to negate the good faith found by the trial court.

4. Identity of Cause of Action in Earlier and Present Proceedings:
The respondents contended that Section 14(1) was not applicable as the earlier proceedings were not founded on the same cause of action as the present suit. The High Court rejected this argument, stating that the relief sought in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 206 of 1948 was directly related to the cause of action for the present suit, which was the adverse order dated 18-9-1948.

5. Defect of Jurisdiction or Other Cause of a Like Nature:
The respondents argued that Section 14 was not applicable as the earlier appeal did not fail due to a defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature. The High Court interpreted the phrase "defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature" broadly, including an untenable appeal within its scope. The court held that the earlier appeal being dismissed as not tenable was a defect of jurisdiction or a cause of a like nature.

Conclusion:
The High Court found that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The trial Judge's view that the suit was barred by time was based on a misapprehension of the law regarding the exclusion periods. Consequently, the High Court set aside the trial court's judgment and remitted the case for further trial on merits. The appellants were also granted a refund of the court fees paid on the memorandum of appeal.