Key Points: - The trial court and first appellate court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to exclusion of time under Section 14 for 1980-1982; High Court reversed (unsustainably) in second appeal. (!) - The case discusses withdrawal of a suit under Order XXIII Rule 1 with permission to file a fresh suit and the effect on limitation under Section 14(3). (!) (!) - Section 14(1) provides exclusion of time for proceedings prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith in a court lacking jurisdiction. (!) (!) - The "good faith" requirement is a finding of fact and relates to exercising due care and attention; failure to implead necessary parties can negate good faith. (!) (!) - The conditions for applicability of Section 14 (3) include same party, same matter, prior proceeding with due diligence and good faith, and the earlier and later proceedings in a court. (!) (!) - The "defect of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature" must be such that the court is unable to entertain the prior proceeding. (!) - The appellant’s contention that withdrawal with permission to file a fresh suit can extend limitation under Section 14(3) was considered and contrasted with Rabindra Nath Samuel Dawson’s principle. (!) (!) - The High Court’s reversal of concurrent factual findings is noted as unsustainable in this judgment. (!) (!) - The final outcome: appeal allowed with costs; lower judgments set aside and fresh suit decreed. (!)

What is the correctness of excluding the period from 21.3.1980 to 15.2.1982 under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963?

How to determine whether the prior proceedings were prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith for application of Section 14?

What are the conditions under which Section 14, including its sub-sections (1) and (3), applies to a fresh suit filed after withdrawal with permission to file a new suit?