Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation 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