Point of Law: Section 14 of Limitation Act, reads as Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

(Satyen Vaidya, J.)

1. By way of instant Regular Second Appeal, judgment and decree dated 03.03.2016, passed by learned Additional District Judge (II), Shimla, H.P. in Civil Appeal No.16-S/13 of 2015 affirming judgment and decree dated 28.06.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shimla, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 31/1 of 2011/2009, has been assailed.

2. On 10.08.2016, the appeal was admitted for hearing on following substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether the findings of the learned Courts below are perverse and without considering the provisions of taking preliminary objections at the initial stage and limitation?

(ii) Whether the learned Courts below have failed to appreciate the arbitration agreement in its true perspective and the conclusions arrived at by the learned Courts below are perverse?

3. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to by the same status as they held before the learned trial Court. The appellant herein was the plaintiff and the respondents herein were the defendants.

4. Plaintiff sued defendants for recovery of Rs.9,00,000/- with interest pendente lite and future at the rate of 24% per annum. The suit was filed on the premise that plaintiff had executed the work of construction of new MLA Hostel at Vidhan Sabha “Block-P”, in pursuance to contract awarded to him by the defendants. Though the completion of work was delayed, but the defendants had acquiesced by allowing extension of time. Plaintiff had raised certain claims against the defendants and had invoked the arbitration clause of the work contract. The Arbitrator had passed an award in his favour under various heads including a sum of Rs.3,80,217/- on account of price escalation under clause 10-C of the agreement. The respondents had preferred objections, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before this Court. All other claims of plaintiff were upheld except the aforesaid claim of Rs. 3,80,217/- on the ground that Clause 10-C of the agreement between the parties was outside the scope of the Arbitrator’s jurisdiction.

5. Plaintiff, thus filed the suit for the above stated amount of Rs.3,80,217/- alongwith interest at the rate of Rs.24% per annum. The suit amount was, accordingly, calculated at Rs.9,00,000/-

6. The suit was contested by the defendants on the grounds that the claim under Clause 10-C of the agreement, submitted by the plaintiff, could not be entertained and admitted by the defendants as the claim had been preferred by the plaintiff without any detailed documentary evidence.

7. Learned trial Court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of suit amount as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD

4. Relief.

8. Issue No.1 was decided in negative and all other issues were decided in affirmative. The suit of the plaintiff was accordingly dismissed. Learned trial Court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove the facts necessary for supporting his claim under Clause 10-C of agreement. In addition, the claim of the plaintiff was held to be barred by limitation.

9. The case of plaintiff met the same fate in first appeal. Learned lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide impugned judgment and decree. It was concurrently held that the plaintiff had failed to establish his claim under Clause 10-C of the agreement.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.

11. It is not in dispute that the completion of work got delayed, however, the extension of time was allowed by the defendants. Plaintiff preferred a claim, before the Arbitrator, on account of price escalation under Clause 10-C of the agreement. The Arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs.3,80,217/- for price escalation. Since, learned Single Judge of this Court had set-aside the award passed by the Arbitrator to the extent it allowed the claim o