9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Barred by Limitation 2. Applicability of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 3. Rate of Damages Detailed Analysis: 1. Barred by Limitation: The primary issue in this case was whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by limitation. The plaintiffs sought recovery of damages for the period from November 22, 1948, to November 5, 1956. The defendant argued that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial court and the High Court both held that the plaintiffs were entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, which allowed for the exclusion of time during which the plaintiffs were prosecuting another civil proceeding in good faith. The High Court found that the previous suit was founded upon the same cause of action and was prosecuted with due diligence, thus satisfying the conditions of Section 14. 2. Applicability of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908: Section 14(1) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, states: "In computing the period of limitation prescribed for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a Court of first instance or in a Court of Appeal, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding is founded upon the same cause of action and is prosecuted in good faith in a Court which, from defect of jurisdiction, or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it." The High Court held that the plaintiffs could take advantage of Section 14 because the previous suit included the claim for future damages, and it was prosecuted in good faith. The court in the previous suit was found to be "unable to entertain" the claim for future mesne profits due to a defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature. The High Court's decision was based on the principle that the defect must be of such a character as to make it impossible for the court to entertain the suit or to prevent it from deciding it on the merits. 3. Rate of Damages: The trial court fixed the rate of compensation at Rs. 250 per month, which was upheld by the High Court. The plaintiffs initially claimed damages at the rate of Rs. 300 per month. The High Court, however, upheld the trial court's determination of the rate of damages at Rs. 250 per month. The defendant contested this rate, but the courts found it to be appropriate based on the evidence presented. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, agreeing that the plaintiffs were entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. The court found that the previous suit was prosecuted in good faith and that the defect in the previous suit was of a nature that prevented the court from entertaining it. The rate of damages determined by the trial court and upheld by the High Court was also affirmed. The appeal was dismissed with costs. The separate opinion by Hegde, J., acknowledged the long-standing legal principle that a new cause of action accrues when a decree is set aside, thus agreeing with the majority opinion that the plaintiffs were entitled to the benefit of Section 14 and the suit was not barred by limitation.
|
