Exclusion of Time of Proceeding bona fide in Court without Jurisdiction (Section 14)

Mains Questions – Limitation Act

Q.1. Ramesh sold his land measuring 200 square yards for Rs. 2,00,000/- and handed over the possession of the same to Sarjesh in the year 1990. In the year 1991, Sarjesh sold his land to ABC Co. for a sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- On 2.3.1992, one of the sons of Ramesh, who had attained majority in the year 1991, filed a suit for recovery of possession of the land against ABC Co. on the ground that the land in issue was a Joint Hindu Family property and thus Ramesh could not have sold the land to Sarjesh as the transaction was neither for a legal necessity nor in the interests of the Joint Hindu Family. ABC Co. in its written statement inter alia raised a preliminary objection that as Sarjesh has not been made party to the suit, and the two sale deeds were not under challenge, the suit as framed was not maintainable. The suit remained pending for some time and ultimately got dismissed on the two preliminary objections raised by ABC Co. The plaintiff filed an appeal and then withdrew the same in the year 2001 with liberty to take such other legal recourse including a civil suit against the defendant as may be permissible in law. The plaintiff then in the year 2002 again filed a fresh suit for a declaration that the sale deed in favour of Sarjesh and the consequent sale deed in favour of ABC Co. were null and void and for recovery of possession of land. This time Sarjesh was made a defendant to the suit. ABC Co. filed its written statement and raised a preliminary objection that the suit was barred by time. The plaintiff relied on Section 14 of the Limitation Act and contended that the suit was within time. Decide. [DJS 2011]

Q.2. In a partition suit Court found the value of suit properties beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction and returned the plaint on 10.06.1988. On account of compromise with some claimant some properties were deleted and the value of the suit came within the jurisdiction of the Court. The plaintiff represented the plaint in the same Court on 12.06.1988. He claimed exclusion of time between the date of filing of suit, 20.11.1986, and representation of the plaint, under section 14 of the Limitation Act. He urged that he must be deemed to have been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding. The defendant pleaded that the suit is barred by time. Decide, Give reasons. [DJS 1990]