9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to exclusion of the period from 21.3.1980 to 15.2.1982 u/s 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for computation of the period of limitation for filing the suit. 2. Whether the suit was barred by limitation. 3. Whether the plaintiffs prosecuted the previous suit in good faith and with due diligence. Summary: Issue 1: Exclusion of Period u/s 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 The primary question was whether the plaintiffs were entitled to exclude the period from 21.3.1980 to 15.2.1982 u/s 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for computing the limitation period. The plaintiffs argued that they were prosecuting the previous suit in good faith, which was permitted by the court to be withdrawn with leave to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The defendant contended that the plaintiffs were aware of the objection regarding non-joinder of a necessary party, Smt. Ghogri, and thus could not claim to have prosecuted the previous suit in good faith. Issue 2: Barred by Limitation The trial court framed issues including whether the suit was barred by time and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to exclusion of time during the period from 21.3.1980 to 24.2.1982. The trial court and the first appellate court held that the plaintiffs did not pursue the previous suit with due diligence and good faith, thus the suit was barred by limitation. The High Court, however, set aside these findings, holding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was within time and they were entitled to exclusion of the period under section 14 of the Limitation Act. Issue 3: Good Faith and Due Diligence The trial court and the first appellate court found that the plaintiffs did not prosecute the previous suit in good faith, as they were aware of the non-joinder of a necessary party. The High Court did not discuss the materials on which the lower courts based their findings and reversed the concurrent decisions with a general observation that the plaintiffs were entitled to exclusion of the period under section 14 of the Limitation Act. Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that the High Court was in error in upsetting the concurrent decisions of the lower courts. The plaintiffs were not entitled to exclusion of the period under section 14 of the Limitation Act as they did not prosecute the previous suit in good faith. The appeal was allowed, the judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the judgment of the Additional District Judge confirming the trial court's decision was restored. The suit was thus barred by limitation.
|
