G.S. SISTANI, J.

I.A. No.13516/2011 (for Condonation of 929 days delay)

1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.27,10,215/-against the defendant Bank. Along with the present suit the plaintiff has filed an application under Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963.

2. As per the plaint, the defendant bank has wrongly debited a sum of Rs.6,56,765/-and Rs.6,00,000/-, on 19.11.2005 which were received in the account of the plaintiff and adjusted against the overdraft in the account of the plaintiff. As per the plaintiff, debt of Rs.12,56,765/-is the bone of contention between the parties. The plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant bank on 16.3.2006, however, no response to this legal notice was received. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a complaint with the Banking Ombudsman, Jeevan Bharti Building, New Delhi, on 26.4.2006. The Ombudsman thereafter referred the complaint of the plaintiff to the Reserve Bank of India, Department of Banking Supervision. As per this application, number of meetings and discussions were held before the competent officer of RBI and letters were exchanged between the parties from 16.6.2006 till the year 2009 but no speaking order was passed by the Reserve Bank of India. This forced the petitioner to approach the High Court by filing a writ petition, being W.P.(C)1143/2009, which was disposed of by the High Court by an order dated 1.12.2009, by which a direction was issued to the Reserve Bank of India to pass a speaking order in the matter. A speaking order was passed by the Reserve Bank of India on 18.3.2011. The plaintiff thereafter filed the present suit on 9.8.2011.

3. By the present application, the plaintiff has prayed that the plaintiff was diligently pursuing the matter with the defendant Bank as a legal notice was issued to the bank as early as on 16.3.2006 thereafter the petitioner approached the Ombudsman and was pursuing the matter with the Reserve Bank of India and thereafter a writ petition was filed praying that the Reserve Bank of India should pass a speaking order in the matter.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the speaking order was passed only on 18.3.2011 and thereafter the present suit was filed on 9.8.2011. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon (2004) 13 SCC 656 and also (2004) 3 SCC 458 in support of his plea that since the plaintiff was pursuing a wrong remedy by approaching the bank, time spent in making a complaint to ombudsman and facts of writ petition be excluded from the period of limitation.

5. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon Union of India And Ors. Vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. & Anr. 2004 vol. 3 SCC 458 and more particularly paragraph 14, in support of his submission that section 14 of the Limitation Act is to be liberally interpreted and a person should not be deprived of the remedy in case he has a right.

6. Reliance has also been placed on N.Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, wherein the Apex Court has held that the object of Limitation Act is not meant to destroy the rights of the parties as it is founded on public policy fixing a life span for the legal remedy is for the general welfare. In support of his argument that the provisions of Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act are alike and should be applied in a broad based manner, counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance in the case of J. Kumaradasan Nair & Anr. Vs. IRIC Sohan & Ors. 2009 (2) scale page 544. It is also contended that only because a mistake has been committed by the plaintiff by not approaching the appropriate forum for ventilating his grievance, section 14 of the Limitation Act would squarely apply. To the same effect reliance is placed in the case of Consolidated Engineering Enterprises Vs. Principal Secretary, Irrigation, Department and Ors. (2008) 7 SCC page 169, in support of his plea that the equity underlying Section 14 should be applied to the fullest extent.

7. Learned counsel for the defendant has vehemen