Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 1736
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
Ansal Mittal Township P Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Rajinder Kumar - Respondent
Civil Revision No.8225 of 2017 (O&M)
Decided on : 08-05-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Amarpreet Singh, for Mr. Binderjit Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Karan Singla, Advocate
Headnote:
Limitation Act - Interpretation of Section 14 - [CONSUMER COMPLAINT] - [Limitation Act, 1963, Section 14] - The court discussed the interpretation of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, specifically focusing on the phrase 'other cause of a like nature' in relation to the dismissal of a consumer complaint. The court examined relevant precedents and emphasized the application of the rule of Ejusdem Generis in interpreting the provision. The judgment highlighted that the benefit of Section 14 cannot be extended to exclude the time spent before the consumer court when the complaint was dismissed on the ground of limitation and not for defect of jurisdiction. The court also emphasized the importance of context in applying legal precedents.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a consumer complaint seeking refund and interest, which was dismissed as time-barred. After withdrawing the appeal, the plaintiff filed a civil suit with an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which was allowed by the Civil Court. The defendant challenged this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff could not claim exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, as the consumer complaint was dismissed for limitation and not for defect of jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the plaintiff had elected a remedy provided by the legislature and could not seek the benefit of Section 14 after failing on the ground of limitation.
Issues: Interpretation of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in the context of the dismissal of a consumer complaint, and the applicability of the benefit of exclusion of time under Section 14.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the benefit of Section 14 cannot be extended to exclude the time spent before the consumer court when the complaint was dismissed on the ground of limitation and not for defect of jurisdiction. The court also emphasized the importance of context in applying legal precedents.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the order allowing the application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act was set aside. The suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed as barred by limitation.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. In this revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India interesting question arises for determination:-
“Whether on dismissal of consumer complaint filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1986 Act') being time barred, upheld in the first appeal and on withdrawal of further appeal from the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, can a plaintiff can claim benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking exclusion of the time spent before consumer courts?”
2. Predecessor of the plaintiff purchased a plot from the defendant-petitioner measuring 300 square yards. Plaintiff, thereafter, stepped into the shoes of the original allottee vide transfer letter dated 18.02.2008. Plaintiff, thereafter, appears to have paid certain amount towards price of the plot. Certain amount was further demanded on account of laying of the road etc., which was paid by the plaintiff from time to time and last payment was made on 22.05.2009. Plaintiff filed a complaint under Section 12 of the 1986 Act claiming that he is entitled to refund of the interest of Rs.38,387/- along with interest admissible at the market rate on the amount of Rs.1,84,786/- which was received maturely.
3. Consumer complaint under the 1986 Act was filed on 26.03.2012. The consumer complaint was contested. Apart from other grounds, it was pleaded that the complaint is barred by limitation. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda, dismissed the complaint vide order dated 25.07.2012 on the ground that the consumer complaint is beyond limitation.
4. The first appeal preferred before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, was also dismissed vide order dated 28.04.2014. Plaintiff-respondent filed a revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and after addressing arguments, sought permission to withdraw the revision petition. The order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redresal Commission dated 27.05.2015 is extracted as under:-
“Petitioner is present in person. Arguments heard. At this stage, petitioner wants to withdraw this Revision Petition.
As prayed by him, he is given the liberty to get redressal of his grievance before the Civil Court, as per law.
So far as the limitation is concerned, he can seek help from Luxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases 583”.
5. Plaintiff, thereafter, filed a civil suit on 13.07.2015. Along with the plaint, an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was filed, which has been allowed by the Civil Court vide order dated 01.09.2017, subject matter of challenge before this court.
6. The question which arises stems out from interpretation of words “other cause of a like nature” as appearing in Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is extracted as under:-
14. Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction.—
(1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, 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) In computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding 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.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 2 of Order XXIII of the Code
