Important Point
The benefits of provisions of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 can be extended to a suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant under Order 21 of Rule 103 CPC as it stood before its 1976 amendment.

Headnote:Limitation Act, 1908-Section 14(1)-Benefit under-Fulfilling of condition-CPC, 1908-Order 21 Rule 103 (before 1976 amendment)-Obstruction in obtaining possession by decree-holder-He moved an application for help of Court u/Order 21 Rule 97 CPC-Objections filed by obstructor-Appellant-Rejected by executing Court-Proper remedy was to file suit u/Order 21 Rule 103 CPC but on ill advise of counsel filed Revision-Which was dismissed-Then filed suit u/Order 21 Rule 103 claiming benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1908-Lower Court granted the benefit but High Court reversed-Appeal to Supreme Court -Whether the benefit of provisions of Section 14 of Indian Limitation Act, 1908 can be extended to suit filed by obstructor-appellant under Order 21 Rule 103 CPC? (Yes)-Four conditions for application of Section 14(1)-Prosecution of earlier proceeding with due diligence -The earlier civil proceeding was based on the same cause of action-Good faith-Court due to defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature was unable to entertain such proceeding-First two conditions satisfied-Whether other two are also satisfied? (Yes)-Effect - Appeal allowed.
       Held : In case no suit is filed under Rule 103, the order passed under Rule 98 is final between the parties. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the High Court could not have entertained the revision since it suffered from “other cause of a like nature’ which precluded it from deciding the rights of the parties on facts. (Para 8)
       It is not disputed that the plaintiff-appellant filed the revision before the High Court on the advice of his counsel, although it may be that he was ill-advised. An illiterate litigant cannot be made to suffer when he is ill-advised by his counsel. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that the plaintiff-appellant prosecuted the earlier civil proceeding in good faith. (Para 10)
       For the aforesaid reasons this civil appeal deserves to be allowed. Consequently the judgment and order dated 5.9.1985 in Second Appeal No. 2062 of 1984 passed by the High Court is set aside. Since the High Court has allowed the second appeal only on the point of limitation, this case is sent back to the High Court for decision on surviving points. The matter being quite old, we request the High Court to decide the second appeal expeditiously preferably within six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The appeal is allowed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (Para 11)

Judgment

V.N. Khare, J.-This civil appeal raises only one question that is, as to whether the benefits of provisions of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) can be extended to a suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant under Order 21 of Rule 103 CPC and is directed against the judgment of a Learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, whereby the Second Appeal filed by the defendant-respondent was allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed.

2. Since the High Court had dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation, the facts of the case which are somewhat complicated, need not be set out in detail, but reference may be made only to such facts which have direct bearing upon the question involved in this case.

3. The defendant-respondent had filed suit No. 279 of 1950 against one Chhutan for recovery of rent and ejectment from the premises which was decreed and the execution proceeding No. 331 of 1951 ensued. Since the Amin could not deliver the possession of the property due to obstruction by the plaintiff-appellant, the defendant-respondent moved an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC before the executing Court. The plaintiff-appellant filed objections to the said application claiming himself to be the co-owner and in possession over the property. After hearing the objections, the application of the defendant-respondent was allowed by the executing Court on 3.2.1956 and the objections raised by the plaintiff-appellant were rejected. Under such circumstances, although the plaintiff-appellant had a remedy of filing a fresh suit under Order 21 Rule 103 CPC, but instead he filed a revision before the High Court on 9.2.1956 which was dismissed on 30.10.1957. After the revision petition was rejected, the plaintiff-appellant brought suit No. 390 of 1958 on 26.9.1958 under Order 21 Rule 103 CPC. In the said suit the plaintiff-appellant prayed for a declaration that he is the co-sharer and is entitled to possession on the land in dispute. Since the said suit was barred by limitation, the plaintiff-appellant claimed the benefit of Section 14 of the Act. The Learned Munsif, on facts, extended the benefits of provisions of Section 14 of the Act and on merits the suit was decreed. The first appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the defendant-respondent and affirmed the decree. The defendant-respondent thereafter filed Second Appeal before the High Court. In the Second Appeal, the question that arose for consideration was whether the plaintiff-appellant was entitled to exclude the time spent in prosecuting the civil revision petition in the High Court. The view taken by the High Court was that the plaintiff’s revision petition filed against the order passed by the Court on an application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 having been entertained by the High Court and not dismissed for want of jurisdiction, the plaintiff-appellant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Act. On the question of “good faith”, the view of the High Court was that, since there being clear provision in the Code of Civil Procedure that against an order passed on an application filed under Order 21 Rule 97, the only remedy available to an objector is to file suit under Rule 103, the revision petition filed by the plaintiff-appellant was ill-advised and, therefore, the plaintiff-appellant did not prosecute the proceeding in good faith. In that view of the matter, the High Court allowed the second appeal and dismissed the plaintiff-appellant’s suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiff-appellant has come to this Court by special leave.

4. Before us learned counsel for the appellant contended that the High Court while exercising its revisional power had no jurisdiction to decide the matter on facts and as such, the High Court suffered from disability to adjudicate the matter and thus the case fell within the expression “other cause of a like nature” appearing in Section 14 of the Act and in th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 678

Important PointThe benefits of provisions of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 can be extended to a suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant under Order 21 of Rule 103 CPC as it stood before its 1976 amendment.

Important Point
The benefits of provisions of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 can be extended to a suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant under Order 21 of Rule 103 CPC as it stood before its 1976 amendment.