The time spent in prosecuting an application for redemption of mortgage before the Collector can be excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act if the proceedings before the Collector are civil proceedings in a Court and the Collector is unable to entertain the application due to a defect of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature.

D. P. Sood, J.—This Regular Second Appeal under para 32, of the Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order has been directed against the Judgment and decree dated April 16, 1982, of the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi and Shim la Division, Camp at Bilaspur.

2. Plaintiffs are the appellants. Their suit for possession of suit land by way of redemption was decreed by the trial court, but has been dismissed in appeal on the short ground that the suit is patently time barred. Thus the sole question involved in the instant case is "whether the suit in "question has been filed within time."

3. The facts leading to the instant appeal, shortly stated, are that S/Sh. Shyama and Jyoti, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants had mortgaged with possession the suit land with S/Shri Jawahar and Kanshi Ram, predecessor-in-interest for a consideration of Rs. 100 on 10th of Jeth 1977 BK On 8th February, 1967. the plaintiff preferred an application for redemption of the mortgage in question before the Collector. Bilaspur, which application was contested. For the reason given in his order dated 11-5-1971 Ex. PC the appellant were directed to seek their remedy in a civil court, consequent whereto the appellants filed the suit, as indicated above. The first appellate Court came to the conclusion that the appellants were not entitled to the period spent by them in prosecuting their application before the Collector, Bilaspur, because those proceedings could neither be said to be the proceedings before a Court nor that can be nomenclature as civil proceedings to which section 14 of the Limitation Act applies. As a result of this finding the appellants suit was dismissed.

4. The instant suit was filed on 3-8-1971 though under the law of limitation it could have been filed upto 1-1-19"

1. It is the common case of the parties that the limitation for the filing of the suit for redemption expired on January 1, 1971.

5. According to the plaintiffs, they are entitled to exclude the period under section 14 of the Limitation Act which was spent in prosecuting the application made by them before the Collector under the Act. It is also the common case of the parties that if that period is allowed then the suit is within time. The said application before the Collector was filed on 8-2-1967/14-3-1967 and remained pending till 11-5-1971. Thus the only controversy between the parties is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to exclude the time spent by them in prosecuting the application before the Collector, Section 14 of the Limitation Act runs as under i "14. Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in Court without jurisdiction—(i) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting , ; with due diligence another civil proceedings, whether in a Court of first instance or of appeal or revision against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a Court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it." (2) and (3) * *

6. Thus in order to invoke the said provisions the plaintiffs are required to prove that they had been prosecuting the proceedings with due diligence and secondly that such proceedings were civil proceedings in a Court and thirdly that the said Court was enable to entertain it on account of some defect of jurisdiction or other causes of like nature.

7. It cannot be disputed that the plaintiffs were prosecuting with due diligence the proceedings initiated under the Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act 1913, (for short, the Act), which was applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh at that time. It is also not disputed that application under section 4 of the aforesaid Act was filed by the plaintiffs before the expiry of the limitation for filing the suit for possession by way of redemption, before the Collector. Now the plaintiffs had two remedies, one was through procee