Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Report No. 89

14.21. Direction by the earlier Court.- Sometimes the Court returning the plaint passes an order permitting the plaintiff to file the returned plaint in the proper court in an extended period1 after expressing an opinion that a fraud had been perpetrated entitling the plaintiff to the benefit of section 14 of the Act. This, however, is beyond the powers of the court and it has been held in an Allahabad case2 that whether the plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act is not to be decided by the court directing the return of the plaint. The point, of course, does not necessitate any change in the law.

1. Parameswara Kurun v. Vrsudeva Kurun, ILR 1964 Ker 625.

2. Ranjeet Singh v. Bind Bahadur, AIR 1975 All 547.

14.22. Successive petitions.- It sometimes happens that the plaintiff filed successive petitions to a wrong court and seeks to plead the benefit of section 14(2). The period forming the intervals between successive petitions (when the party merely stood by, allowing limitation to run) cannot, however, be considered as a period of "prosecuting" proceedings, within the ambit of the rule.1

No change, of course, is needed on this point.

1. S.V. Krishnier v. A.R. Ramchandra, AIR 1961 Madras 197.

14.23. Recommendations for amending sections 14 and 4.- In the light of the above discussion, we recommend that amendments on the following lines should be effected in sections 14 and 4.

(i) Section 14 should be amended as under:-Sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 14 as they are. New sub-section (2A) should be inserted in section 14 as unde.-

"(2A) In computing the period of limitation for any appeal, the time during which the appellant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or appeal or revision against the same party, for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it."1

(ii) The Explanation should be revised as under in section 14:-

"Explanation.- For the purposes of this secti.-

(a) in excluding the time during which a former civil proceeding was pending

(i) the day on which that proceeding was instituted and the day on which it ended shall both be counted;

(ii) the time reasonably necessary for a plaintiff or an applicant or an appellant to perform the journey from the place where the former civil proceeding was pending to the place where the proper court is situated shall be deemed to be time during which the former civil proceeding was pending."2

[Clauses (b) and (c) of the Explanation as they are at present].

(iii) Section 4 should be amended by adding thereto another Explanation (after re-numbering the present Explanation as Explanation I). The added Explanation will read as unde.-

"Explanation I.-For the purposes of this section, the word 'court' includes a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain the suit, appeal or application, as the case may be, provided the suit, appeal or application was prosecuted in good faith in that court."

1. See para. 14.12, supra.

2. See para. 14.13, supra.

3. See paras. 14.2 to 14.8, supra.

The Limitation Act, 1963 Back

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys