"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

Bona Fide Pursuit in Wrong Jurisdiction Merits Exclusion of Time Under Section 14 of Limitation Act: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment delivered today by Justice Sanjay Karol, the Supreme Court has significantly interpreted the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act in the context of execution proceedings, emphasizing the exclusion of time when an application is pursued in good faith in a court lacking jurisdiction.

The crux of the judgment lies in the interpretation of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. This case revolves around whether the time spent pursuing an execution application before a Tehsildar should be excluded for the calculation of the limitation period.

 

The appeal stemmed from the High Court's affirmation of the Munsiff Court's decision, which dismissed an execution application as time-barred. The application was filed initially with the Tehsildar and later in the Munsiff Court. The pivotal issue was the exclusion of the period (18.12.2000 to 29.01.2005) spent before the Tehsildar while computing the limitation period.

 

Exclusion of Time – Section 14 of the Limitation Act: The Supreme Court highlighted the conditions under Section 14, focusing on the need for due diligence, good faith, and civil nature of prior proceedings. The Court found that the appellants pursued the execution in good faith before the Tehsildar, a wrong forum chosen under a genuine belief.

Jurisdiction and Wrong Forum Selection: The Court observed that the appellants showed no malafide intent in approaching the Tehsildar, emphasizing that an honest mistake in jurisdiction selection should not negate the applicability of Section 14.

Applicability of Section 14: The Supreme Court elaborated on the purpose of Section 14, noting its role in advancing justice and preventing the aborting of proceedings due to technicalities. The Court referenced several precedents, underscoring the necessity of interpreting Section 14 in a way that furthers the cause of justice.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the Munsiff Court. It restored the execution application for fresh consideration by the Munsiff Court, Hiranagar, acknowledging that the execution application was within the 3-year limitation period of Article 182 of the J&K Limitation Act, once the time spent before the Tehsildar was excluded.

Date of Decision: April 2, 2024

Purni Devi & Anr. Vs. Babu Ram & Anr.

Similar News