Greater Ashoka Land & Development ... vs Karan Singh
2014 Latest Caselaw 5629 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         CM(M) 998/2014
%                                             10th November , 2014

GREATER ASHOKA LAND & DEVELOPMENT CO. (P) LTD.
                                            ......Petitioner
                 Through: Mr. R.S.Kela, Adv.


                          VERSUS

KARAN SINGH                                                 ...... Respondent
                          Through:

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.    The challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India is to the impugned order of the trial court dated

16.4.2014 which has allowed an application under Section 14 of the

Limitation Act, 1963 filed by the respondent/plaintiff thereby excluding the

period from 20.4.1994 to 19.05.2011, inasmuch as, that period was spent in

an earlier litigation for reference of disputes to arbitration, and it was found

that disputes cannot be referred to arbitration as there is no arbitration

clause.


CMM 998/2014                                                                    Page 1 of 2
 2.     Section 14 of the Limitation Act has been included in the statute only

for facts such as the present case because where the respondent-plaintiff

earlier sought reference to arbitration, and which is an issue of jurisdiction,

and failed, then the time spent in earlier litigation has to be necessarily

excluded with respect to calculation of the period of limitation for filing of a

civil suit in civil court, and which suit is the present/subject civil suit.


3.     Since admittedly the only period excluded is the period spent in

earlier litigation where reference was sought to arbitration, I do not find that

the impugned order in any manner is illegal in excluding that period under

Section 14 of the Limitation Act which has been spent in the earlier

litigation.


4.     Dismissed.




NOVEMBER 10, 2014                                VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib