Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on April 2, 2024 said that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which carves out an exception, can be invoked by a party provided he is not guilty of negligence, lapse or inaction.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Aravind Kumar pointed out a three judge bench judgment in 'Consolidated Engg. Enterprises Vs Principle Secy, Irrigation Department' (2008) which expounded that the provisions of this Section, must be interpreted and applied in a manner that furthers the cause of justice, rather than aborts the proceedings at hand and the time taken diligently pursuing a remedy, in a wrong court, should be excluded.

The Apex Court allowed an appeal by one Purni Devi and another against the Jammu and Kashmir High Court's order of 2018, whereby the judgment and order of Munsiff, Hiranagar, came to be affirmed, wherein the execution application preferred by the plaintiff was dismissed, being barred by limitation.

"No substantial averment has come on record to substantiate the claim that the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff approached the Tehsildar with any mala fide intention, in the absence of good faith or with the knowledge that it was not the court having competent jurisdiction to execute the decree. The object to advance the cause of justice, as well must be kept in mind," the bench said.

The genesis of the case at hand dated back to 1984, wherein the predecessors in interest of the appellant filed a suit for possession against the respondents. 

On December 10, 1986, this suit was decreed by Munsiff, First Class Hiranagar, in favour of the plaintiff, and the defendants were directed to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the property to the plaintiff. This decree was challenged by the respondents before the District Judge, Kathua, in First Appeal, which came to be dismissed on February 09, 1990. 

Thereafter, the respondents preferred a second appeal before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir which came to be dismissed on November 09, 2000. No further appeal was preferred. Therefore, the decree of the learned Munsiff Court attained finality.

The present lis arose from the application for execution filed by the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff, before the Tehsildar (Settlement), Hiranagar on December 18, 2000. This application came to be rejected on January 29, 2005, where th Tehsildar observed that the plaintiff had not applied before the court with appropriate jurisdiction.

The plaintiff, thereafter, on October 03, 2005 preferred a fresh application for execution before the court of Munsiff, Hiranagar. This application resulted in the order on November 28, 2007, whereby, the Munsiff Court dismissed the application as being barred by limitation, which came to be confirmed by the high court's order.

After examining the details, the bench, however, did not agree with the reasoning given by the high court while rejecting the plea for exclusion of time to be sustainable. 

"On a perusal of the record, it is apparent that the plaintiff has pursued the matter bona fidely and diligently and in good faith before what it believed to be the appropriate forum and, therefore, such time period is bound to be excluded when computing limitation before the court having competent jurisdiction. All conditions stipulated for invocation of Section 14 of the Limitation Act are fulfilled," the bench said.

The court said that the period from December 18, 2000, when the execution application was filed, to January 29, 2005, when the prior proceeding was dismissed, had to be excluded while computing period of limitation, which resulted in the execution application filed by the plaintiff, being within the limitation period prescribed under Article 182 of the Limitation Act as well, which was three years. 

The bench, therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the high court of April 09, 2018 and Munsiff Court, Hiranagar of November 28, 2007. 

The court restored the execution application of the plaintiff to the file of the Munsiff Court, Hiranagar for fresh consideration.

Case Title: Purni Devi & Anr Vs Babu Ram & Anr