JAIN AND BROTHERS Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff in a suit claimed eligible to exclusion of time in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963; for short 'the Limitation Act'. The trial Court took up the application specifically filed invoking the said provision and held that the prior proceedings on the basis of which benefit of exclusion of time was claimed, was decided on merits and not for want of or defect in jurisdiction. The Court below proceeded to hold that the earlier proceedings were decided on merits and therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled to maintain the application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Holding so, the said application was dismissed and consequentially, the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; hereinafter called 'the CP Code'. That is under challenge.

(2.) Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the question whether the prior proceedings in writ jurisdiction before the Madhya Pradesh High Court and before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition arising therefrom, are civil proceedings in relation to the same matter in issue, is by itself a question that ought to have been determined at trial of the suit and that the plea whether the prosecution of such earlier proceedings were with due diligence and in good faith are also matters to be considered at trial and not in summary manner, as has been done by the Court below. Elaborating on the various aspects of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, learned counsel made reference to the judgments of the Apex Court in C. Venkat Swamy v. H.N.Shivanna, (2017) AIR SC 5604, Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. v. Electricity Department,2016 16 SCC 152, M.P.Housing Board v. Mohanlal & Company, (2016) 14 SCC 199, Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta, (2010) 10 SCC 141, Union of India v. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd., (2004) 2 SCC 747, and that of the Calcutta High Court in Basdeo Prasad Khemka v. Union of India, (1978) AIR Calcutta 100.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 1 and 2 supported the impugned order.