1998 (7) TMI 683 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908.
2. Good faith in prosecuting the earlier civil proceeding.
3. Jurisdictional defect or other cause of a like nature.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908:
The central issue in this civil appeal is whether the benefits of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, can be extended to a suit filed under Order 21 Rule 103 CPC. The High Court dismissed the plaintiff-appellant's suit on the grounds of limitation, rejecting the benefit of Section 14. The provision allows for the exclusion of time spent in prosecuting another civil proceeding in good faith in a court that is unable to entertain it due to jurisdictional defects or other similar causes. The Supreme Court analyzed the four conditions required to claim this benefit: due diligence in prosecuting the earlier proceeding, the same cause of action, good faith, and the court's inability to entertain the proceeding due to jurisdictional defect or other similar causes. It was undisputed that the plaintiff-appellant prosecuted the earlier proceeding with due diligence and based on the same cause of action. However, the High Court ruled that the plaintiff-appellant's revision petition was ill-advised and not prosecuted in good faith, thus denying the benefit of Section 14.

2. Good Faith in Prosecuting the Earlier Civil Proceeding:
The Supreme Court examined whether the plaintiff-appellant prosecuted the earlier civil proceeding in good faith. According to Section 2(h) of the Act, "good faith" means an act done with due care and attention. The plaintiff-appellant, an illiterate individual, relied on the advice of his counsel to file a revision petition instead of a fresh suit under Order 21 Rule 103 CPC. The High Court entertained the revision petition, which gave the plaintiff-appellant a reasonable expectation that the original order might be set aside. The Supreme Court noted that the plaintiff-appellant had taken sufficient care and acted without negligence. The Court emphasized that an illiterate litigant should not suffer due to the ill advice of his counsel. Thus, it was concluded that the plaintiff-appellant prosecuted the earlier proceeding in good faith.

3. Jurisdictional Defect or Other Cause of a Like Nature:
The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court's inability to entertain the revision petition constituted a "defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature" under Section 14. The Court referred to the provisions of Order 21 Rules 97 to 103 CPC, noting that the executing court's order under Rule 98 was conclusive, and the only remedy for the plaintiff-appellant was to file a fresh suit under Rule 103. The High Court's decision to entertain the revision petition despite its lack of jurisdiction constituted a "cause of a like nature," precluding it from deciding the rights of the parties on facts. The Supreme Court distinguished this case from a Patna High Court decision, where the plaintiff was cautioned about the maintainability of the appeal, noting that in the present case, the High Court entertained the revision petition, leading the plaintiff-appellant to reasonably expect a favorable outcome.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remanded the case to the High Court for a decision on the remaining points. The Court requested the High Court to expedite the decision within six months. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.