2024 (4) TMI 1164 - SC - Indian Laws

Dismissal of execution application preferred by the Plaintiff barred by limitation - period of limitation for filing the execution petition - suit for possession against the Respondents - period of limitation for filing the execution petition is 3 years or 12 years? - Whether the period (18.12.2000 to 29.01.2005) diligently pursuing execution petition before the Tehsildar, would be excluded for the purposes of computing the period of limitation or not? HELD THAT - On a perusal of Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, which is also applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, it is evident that it carves out an exception excluding the period of limitation when the proceedings are being pursued with due diligence and good faith in a Court which from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it . This Court in CONSOLIDATED ENGG. ENTERPRISES VERSUS PRINCIPAL SECY. IRRIGATION DEPTT. ORS. 2008 (4) TMI 668 - SUPREME COURT further expounded that the provisions of this Section, must be interpreted and applied in a manner that furthers the cause of justice, rather than aborts the proceedings at hand and the time taken diligently pursuing a remedy, in a wrong Court, should be excluded. In M/S LAXMI SRINIVASA R AND P BOILED RICE MILL VERSUS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ANR. 2022 (12) TMI 822 - SUPREME COURT (2-Judge Bench), this Court followed the dictum in Consolidated Engg. Enterprises to exclude the time period undertaken by the Plaintiff therein in pursuing remedy under Writ Jurisdiction, in the absence of challenge to the bona fides of the Plaintiff, in view of Section 14. No substantial averment has come on record to substantiate the claim that the predecessor in interest of the Plaintiff approached the Tehsildar with any mala fide intention, in the absence of good faith or with the knowledge that it was not the Court having competent jurisdiction to execute the decree. The object to advance the cause of justice, as well must be kept in mind. On a perusal of the record, it is apparent that the Plaintiff has pursued the matter bonafidely and diligently and in good faith before what it believed to be the appropriate forum and, therefore, such time period is bound to be excluded when computing limitation before the Court having competent jurisdiction. All conditions stipulated for invocation of Section 14 of the Limitation Act are fulfilled. Thus, the period from 18.12.2000, when the execution application was filed to 29.01.2005, when the prior proceeding was dismissed, has to be excluded while computing period of limitation, which results in the execution application filed by the Plaintiff, being within the limitation period prescribed under Article 182 of the Limitation Act as well, which is 3 years. The impugned order of the High Court dated 09.04.2018 and Munsiff Court, Hiranagar dated 28.11.2007 are set aside. The execution application of the Plaintiff is restored to the file of the Munsiff Court, Hiranagar for fresh consideration, in consonance with the view on limitation - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Limitation period for filing execution application.
2. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for excluding the time spent in pursuing proceedings in a wrong forum.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Limitation Period for Filing Execution Application:

The central question was whether the execution petition was filed within the prescribed time limit and whether the limitation period was 3 years or 12 years. The Munsiff Court determined that the limitation period for filing an execution application is governed by Article 182 of the J&K Limitation Act, which prescribes a 3-year period, as opposed to Section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which prescribes a 12-year period for subsequent applications. The court concluded that the application should have been filed within 3 years from the date the second appeal was dismissed, thereby rendering the application time-barred.

The High Court affirmed this decision, relying on precedent cases such as J&K Bank Limited v. Amar Poultry Farm and Prem Lata Agarwal v. Lakshman Prasad Gupta, which clarified that the 3-year limitation period applies to the first execution application under Article 182 of the J&K Limitation Act.

2. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act:

The Plaintiff argued that the time spent pursuing the execution application before the Tehsildar should be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which allows for the exclusion of time spent in proceedings pursued in good faith before a court that ultimately lacked jurisdiction. The Plaintiff contended that the application before the Tehsildar was filed under a bona fide belief that the Tehsildar had jurisdiction, and thus, this period should be excluded when calculating the limitation period.

The High Court initially rejected this argument, stating that the Plaintiff had chosen the wrong forum and was not entitled to exclusion of time under Section 14. However, the Supreme Court found merit in the Plaintiff's argument, noting that the Plaintiff had indeed raised the plea of exclusion before the High Court. The Supreme Court referred to the principles laid down in Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Principal Secy, Irrigation Department and M.P. Steel Corporation v. CCE, which emphasized that Section 14 should be interpreted to advance justice and exclude time spent pursuing a remedy in good faith in a wrong court.

The Supreme Court observed that all conditions for invoking Section 14 were met: both proceedings were civil in nature, prosecuted by the Plaintiff, pertained to the same matter, and were pursued in good faith. The court concluded that the Plaintiff had acted diligently and in good faith, and therefore, the period from 18.12.2000 to 29.01.2005 should be excluded from the limitation period.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the Munsiff Court. It restored the Plaintiff's execution application for fresh consideration, holding that the application was within the limitation period once the time spent before the Tehsildar was excluded. The court emphasized the importance of advancing justice and not penalizing parties for bona fide mistakes in selecting the forum.