9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 1164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, the decree of the learned Munsiff Court attained finality on 09.11.2000. 4. The present lis arises from the application for execution filed by the predecessor in interest of the Plaintiff, before the learned Tehsildar (Settlement), Hiranagar on 18.12.2000. This application came to be rejected on 29.01.2005, whereby the learned Tehsildar observed that the Plaintiff had not applied before the Court with appropriate jurisdiction. 5. The Plaintiff thereafter, on 03.10.2005 preferred a fresh application for execution before the Court of Munsiff, Hiranagar. This application resulted in the order dated 28.11.2007, whereby, the learned Munsiff Court dismissed the application as being barred by limitation, which has come to be confirmed vide the impugned order. Reasoning of the Courts below Munsiff Court, Order dated 28.11.2007 6. The question framed for determination was whether the execution petition was filed within time and whether the period of limitation for filing the execution petition is 3 years or 12 years. 7. The Court after a careful perusal of Article 182 of the J K Limitation Act (which provides for 3 years) and Section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code (which provides for 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned High Court that the Plaintiff had chosen a wrong forum and is not entitled to exclusion of time runs, contrary to the law laid down by this Court that the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are meant for grant of relief, where a person has committed some mistake and such provisions should be applied in a broad manner. Furthermore, the provision of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is para materia to the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, as applicable to the then State of Jammu and Kashmir. 16. The Plaintiff has sought to place reliance on the judgment of this Court in Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Principle Secy, Irrigation Department [(2008) 7 SCC 169] (3- Judge Bench) and M.P. Steel Corporation v. CCE [(2015) 7 SCC 58] (2-Judge Bench) wherein it was expounded that the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act are to advance the cause of justice and must be interpreted to do so rather than abort proceedings. 17. It has been further submitted that in light of the facts of the present case, the Plaintiff is entitled to exclusion of time consumed in pursuing their remedy before the learned Tehsildar, in view of Section 14(2) of the Limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtion of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is extracted as under, for ready reference: Section 14. Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction. (2) In computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding 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. . 26. The Plaintiffs have submitted that the provision of Section14 of the Limitation Act, finds place in the Limitation Act applicable to the then State of J K, which has not been contested by the Respondents. 27. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 14, is that the Plaintiff have not approached this Court with clean hands and did not approach the Court of the Tehsildar diligently and in good faith. 34. The judgment of this Court in M.P. Steel (Supra) discussed the phrases, due diligence and in good faith for the purposes of invocation of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. While considering the application of Section 14 to the Customs Act, it was observed: 10. We might also point out that Conditions 1 to 4 mentioned in the Consolidated Engg. case [(2008) 7 SCC 169] have, in fact, been met by the Plaintiff. It is clear that both the prior and subsequent proceedings are civil proceedings prosecuted by the same party. The prior proceeding had been prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith, as has been explained in Consolidated Engg. [(2008) 7 SCC 169] itself. These phrases only mean that the party who invokes Section 14 should not be guilty of negligence, lapse or inaction. Further, there should be no pretended mistake intentionally made with a view to delaying the proceedings or harassing the opposite party. xxx xxx xxx 49. . the expression the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence ano ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
