Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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.

Latest Legal News