Limitation Act, 1963 – s. 14 – J&K Limitation Act – Art.182 – The High Court dismissed the execution application preferred by the plaintiff being barred by limitation – Sustainability: Held: In the present case, it is not in dispute that:- (i) Both the proceedings are civil in nature and have been prosecuted by the Plaintiff or the predecessor in interest; (ii) The failure of the execution proceedings was due to a defect of jurisdiction; (iii) Both the proceedings pertain to execution of the decree dated 10.12.1986, which attains finality on 09.11.2000; (iv) Both the proceedings are in a court – 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 – On a perusal of the record, it is apparent that the Plaintiff has pursued the matter bonafidely 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 s.14 of the Limitation Act are fulfilled – Therefore, the period from 18.12.2000, when the execution application was filed to 29.01.2005, when the prior proceeding was dismissed, has to be excluded while computing period of limitation – The impugned order of the High Court dated 09.04.2018 and Munsiff Court, Hiranagar dated 28.11.2007 (dismissing application of plaintiff as being barred by limitation) are set aside – The execution application of the Plaintiff is restored to the file of the Munsiff Court, Hiranagar for fresh consideration. [Paras 32, 37, 38, 39, 40]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.