Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 469

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
Shri Naveen Gupta - Appellant
Versus
Shri Satish Jangra – Respondent
RSA 111 of 2019
Decided On : 05-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Prateek Gupta & Mr. Deepayan Mandal, Advocates.

The exclusion of time for prior legal proceedings is permissible if the action was prosecuted in good faith and with due diligence. Technical defects do not preclude this benefit, and disputed factual questions regarding the diligence of the litigant must be resolved through trial rather than summary rejection.

Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 14 - Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court - 'Due diligence' denotes the degree of prudence and care expected of an ordinarily prudent person - Technical defects in a plaint, such as filing in the name of a business entity rather than an individual proprietor, do not ipso facto establish lack of good faith or due diligence - Mere dismissal in default does not inherently exclude the benefit of statutory protection if the proceeding was otherwise pursued with diligence and the court granted liberty to file fresh. (Paras 36, 38, 42)

(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint - Procedure - Disputed questions of fact regarding whether prior proceedings were prosecuted with good faith and due diligence require evidence and trial, and cannot be determined in a summary manner at the stage of considering the rejection of a plaint. (Paras 14, 18, 48)

Facts of the case:
The appellant instituted a suit for recovery which was previously dismissed in default but subsequently restored. The suit was later withdrawn with liberty to institute a fresh proceeding on the same cause of action due to a technical defect regarding the legal description of the plaintiff entity. A subsequent suit was filed, but the respondent sought its rejection, contending it was barred by limitation and ineligible for the time-exclusion benefits under the relevant statutory provisions. The trial and appellate courts rejected the plaint, asserting the plaintiff lacked the necessary good faith and diligence.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the dismissal of the prior suit due to a formal, technical error and the subsequent withdrawal did not signify a lack of bona fide intent. As the earlier court had granted liberty to initiate a fresh action, the period spent in those proceedings qualifies for exclusion. Lower courts erred by summarily determining the issue of diligence and good faith without allowing for a trial to adjudicate those disputed facts.

Issues: Whether a plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of excluding time spent in a previously withdrawn suit under the relevant limitation law, and whether the determination of 'due diligence' and 'good faith' can be conducted summarily during a challenge against the maintainability of a fresh plaint.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that the statutory benefit of excluding time is available where earlier proceedings were pursued with due diligence and good faith, even if they failed due to technical defects. Such defects, like the misdescription of a party, do not negate the bona fide nature of the prosecution. Furthermore, because the question of whether a party acted with 'due diligence' depends on the specific circumstances and involves factual inquiry, it cannot be decided summarily under provisions for the rejection of a plaint but must be established through trial.

Result: Appeal allowed.

Table of Content
1. establishment of factual background and nature of the civil claim. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. contentions regarding limitation period and rejection of plaint under order vii rule 11. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
3. arguments concerning application of section 14 limitation act and procedural due diligence. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
4. assessment of conduct: bona fide prosecution and impact of technical defects on limitation. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
5. interpretation of 'due diligence' and 'good faith' requirements under section 14 limitation act. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)
6. final determination to restore the suit and application of law to facts. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 read with Order XLII of CPC has been preferred against the Judgment dated 31.01.2019, whereby the learned ADJ has upheld the Judgment of the Learned Civil Judge, rejecting the Suit of the Plaintiff, under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC.

2. The Plaintiff, Mr. Naveen Gupta, had instituted a Civil Suit No. CS SCJ 49/2016 (25888/16) for seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.2,54,348/-.

3. The facts, as stated in the Plaint, are that the Plaintiff was an authorised distributor of ACDelco Automobile batteries. The Defendant, who was engaged in the business of sale of batteries, had purchased ACDelco batteries of various specifications, from the Plaintiff on different dates between 30.05.2011 and 21.11.2011, subject to the manufacturer's guarantee and warranty terms.

4. The Plaintiff asserted that the goods were supplied to the complete satisfaction of the Defendant and that an amount of Rs.1,67,334/- remained outstanding and payable by the Defendant. Despite repeated demands, the Defendant failed to discharge the said liability.

5. Consequently, the Plaintiff instituted the aforesaid Suit seeking recovery of Rs.2,54,348/-, comprising the principal outstanding amount along with interest calculated at the rate of 24% per annum, and pendente lite and future interest.

6. The Appellant/Defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking rejection of the Plaint on the grounds that it disclosed no cause of action and was ex facie, barred by limitation. It was contended that all amounts allegedly due and payable to the Plaintiff, had already been cleared in December, 2011.

7. The Defendant further submitted that the Invoices relied upon by the Plaintiff, pertained to the year 2011 and, therefore, the claim was hopelessly time-barred.

8. It was further contended that although the earlier Suit had been withdrawn with liberty to institute a fresh suit under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC, such liberty did not arrest or suspend the running of limitation.

9. Consequently, the subsequently instituted Suit was required to satisfy the law of limitation independently and had to be filed within the same limitation period applicable to the original cause of action. The Defendant further contended that the period during which the earlier suit remained pending, could not be excluded under Sections 14(1) and 14(3) of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the Plaintiff could not be said to have prosecuted the previous proceedings with due diligence and in good faith.

10. The Application was contested by the Plaintiff who contended that the Suit has been filed within the period of limitation, since firstly, the earlier Suit was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh Suit on the same cause of action and secondly, the previous Suit was pursued with due diligence and in good faith. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to exclusion of the time spent in the previous Suit under Section 14 Limitation Act.

11. The learned SCJ in the Order dated 23.04.2018, observed that the Plaintiff was unable to demonstrate that the previous Suit had been pro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(Del) 469

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHINeena Bansal Krishna, J.Shri Naveen Gupta - AppellantVersusShri Satish Jangra – RespondentRSA 111 of 2019Decided On : 05-06-2026

Cases Referred (4)

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
Shri Naveen Gupta - Appellant
Versus
Shri Satish Jangra – Respondent
RSA 111 of 2019
Decided On : 05-06-2026