GHASI RAM Vs. CHAIT RAM SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil appeal raised only question that is, as to whether the benefits of provisions of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) can be extended to a suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant under Order 21 of Rule 103, CPC and is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, whereby the Second Appeal filed by the defendant-respondent was allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed.

(2.) Since the High Court had dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation, the facts of the case which are somewhat complicated, need not be set out in detail, but reference may be made only to such facts which have direct bearing upon the question involved in this case.

(3.) The defendant-respondent had filed Suit No. 279 of 1950 against one Chhutan for recovery of rent and ejectment from the premises which was decreed and the execution proceeding No. 331 of 1951 ensured. Since the Amin could not deliver the possession of the property due to obstruction by the plaintiff-appellant, the defendant-respondent moved an application under Order 21, Rule 97, CPC before the executing Court, Rule 97, CPC before the executing Court. The plaintiff-appellant filed objections to the said application claiming himself to be the co-owner and in possession over the property. After hearing the objections, the application of the defendant-respondent was allowed by the executing Court on 3-2-1956 and the objections raised by the plaintiff-appellant were rejected. Under such circumstances, although the plaintiff-appellant had a remedy of filing a fresh suit under Order 21, Rule 103, CPC, but instead he filed a revision before the High Court on 9-2-1956 which was dismissed on 30-10-1957. After the revision petition was rejected, the plaintiff-appellant brought Suit No. 390 of 1958 on 26-9-1958 under Order 21, Rule 103, CPC. In the said suit the plaintiff-appellant prayed for a declaration that he is the co-sharer and is entitled to possession on the land in dispute. Since the said suit was barred by limitation, the plaintiff-appellant claimed the benefit of Section 14 of the Act. The learned Munsif, on facts, extended the benefits of provisions of Section 14 of the Act on merits the suit was decreed. The first appellant Court dismissed the appeal of the defendant-respondent and affirmed the decree. The defendant-respondent thereafter filed Second Appeal before the High Court. In the Second Appeal, the question that arose for consideration was whether the plaintiff-appellant was entitled to exclude the time spent in prosecuting the civil revision petition in the High Court. The view taken by the High Court was that the plaintiff's revision petition filed against the order passed by the Court on an application filed under Order 21, Rule 97 having been entertained by the High Court and not dismissed for want of jurisdiction, the plaintiff-appellant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Act. On the question of "good faith", the view of the High Court was that, since there being clear provision in the Code of Civil Procedure that against an order passed on an application filed under Order 21, Rule 97, the only remedy available to an objector is to file suit under Rule 103, the revision petition filed by the plaintiff-appellant was ill-advised and, therefore, the plaintiff-appellant did not prosecute the proceeding in good faith. In that view of the matter, the High Court allowed the second appeal and dismissed the plaintiff-appellant's suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiff-appellant has come to this Court by Special Leave.