The Supreme Court held that the time spent diligently pursuing a matter before the wrong forum was bound to be excluded while computing the limitation period. The Court therefore allowed the instant appeal and restored the execution application before the Munsiff Court, to be considered afresh.
Brief Facts:
The matter dates to 1984 when the plaintiff filed a suit for possession against the defendants which was decreed by Munsiff Court in the plaintiff’s favour on 10.12.1986, directing the defendants to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the property to the plaintiff. The first appeal before the District Judge and the second appeal before the High Court was dismissed and the said Munsiff Court’s decision attained finality on 09.11.2000.
The predecessor in interest of the Plaintiff filed an application for execution before the Tehsildar which was rejected on 29.01.2005 with the observation that the same was not applied before the Court of appropriate jurisdiction. A fresh application was preferred before Munsiff Court which again got dismissed on 28.11.2007 for being barred by limitation, which was confirmed by the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court and subject matter of challenge in the instant matter.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to exclusion of time runs for pursuing remedy before the wrong forum, further stating that the provision of Section 14 of the Limitation Act was pari materia to the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, as applicable to the then State of Jammu and Kashmir.
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was particularly challenging that the plaintiff took a plea of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for the first time before the Supreme Court and did not raise the same plea before the Courts below, which ought to be raised at the first instance.
It was further informed that the plaintiff did not appear in the second appeal and filed an application for setting aside an ex-parte order, which was allowed and followed by dismissal through an impugned order.
Observations of the Court:
The Court looked at the points of determination before the Munsiff Court, and its reasoning and pointed out that there was no discussion about the exclusion of time period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Civil Revision against the said order was dismissed on 9.04.2018. The Court highlighted that the argument seeking the exclusion of time spent in pursuing the proceedings before the Tehsildar was rejected by the High Court.
Since the discussion revolved around whether the limitation period had to be 3 years as per article 182 of the J&K Limitation Act or 12 years as per Section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’), the High Court had observed that the State Code of Civil Procedure was required to be brought to 12 years.
The Court perused Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act and observed that “ 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’.”
The Court referred to M/S. Consolidated Engineering Enterprises Vs. The Principal Secretary (Irrigation Department) & Ors, 2008 Latest Caselaw 329 SC for principles pertaining to applicability of Section 14 wherein it was particularly observed that the provision must be interpreted to further the cause of justice rather than aborting the proceedings, and that time taken diligently pursuing a remedy, in a wrong Court, should be excluded.
Hinting at the argument that the petitioner did not approach the Court of the Tehsildar diligently and in good faith, the Court referred to M.P. Steel Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2015 Latest Caselaw 318 SC wherein the phrases “due diligence” and “in good faith” were discussed for invocation of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The Court noted that nothing was brought on record to prove mala fide intention by the predecessor in the interest of the Plaintiff.
The decision of the Court:
The Court observed that perusal of the record reflected that the plaintiff pursued the matter bonafide, diligently and in good faith for what was believed to be an appropriate forum. Thus, such a time period was bound to be excluded while computing limitations before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
The Court held that the period from 18.12.2000 (when the execution application was filed) to 29.01.2005 (when the prior proceeding got dismissed) was to be excluded while computing the period of limitation, which will make the petitioner’s execution application fall within the limitation period of 3 years as prescribed under Article 182 of the Limitation Act.
Therefore, the Court allowed the instant appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court confirming Munsiff Court’s dismissal and restored the file for fresh consideration.
Case Title: Purni Devi & Anr. vs Babu Ram & Anr.
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition No. 17665 of 2018
Citation: 2024 Latest Caselaw 201 SC
Advocates for the Petitioner:
Advocates for the Respondent:
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
