Non-joinder of necessary parties does not constitute a defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, and therefore, it does not entitle a party to the benefit of the provision.

D.S. Sinha, J.

1. Heard Sri Siddhartha Verma, holding brief of Sri S.K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S.K. Saxena, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents no. 22, 23 and 24, at length and in detail.

2. By means of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to assail the legality of the order and judgment dated 15th November, 1979, passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal No. III, Lucknow (hereinafter called the Tribunal) in Claim Petition No. 449 (T)/III/1977, Ram Bharosey Lal Gupta v. Gaon Sabha Sareli Pukhta and others. The relevant facts, as they emerge from the impugned judgment and pleadings before this Court, are these:

3. The petitioner was appointed Panchayat Secretary in August, 1949. He was placed under suspension by an order dated 4th January, 1963, which was followed by the departmental proceedings. The departmental proceedings culminated into the dismissal of the petitioner from service by an order dated 21st September, 1964.

4. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal in civil suit this suit was decreed by the trial court and the order of dismissal was set aside. The matter was taken up in appeal by the defendant in the suit. The appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed, on the ground that necessary parties had not been joined to the suit, and in absence of the necessary parties no relief could be granted to the petitioner. The appellate judgment was challenged by the petitioner in Second Appeal before this Court. This court affirmed the decree and judgment of the first appellate court on 8th August, 1969. Later on, the petitioner filed a fresh suit in December, 1969 challenging the order of dismissal dated 21st September, 1964, aforesaid. In view of the Constitution of the Tribunal, the suit of the petitioner stood transferred before it. The second suit of the petitioner was resisted by the opposite parties, inter alia, on the ground that it was barred by limitation. To meet the plea of limitation, the petitioner invoked the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, hereafter called the Limitation Act.

5. The Tribunal was of the view that the necessary ingredients for grant of the benefit of the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act were lacking and as such the petitioner could not be granted the benefit of the said provisions. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the claim of the petitioner was barred by time and no relief could be granted to him. The Tribunal, therefore, dismissed the Claim Petition by means of its order and judgment impugned herein.

6. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal erred in not granting the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to which the petitioner was clearly (entitled in view of the fact that he had been prosecuting his earlier suit with due diligence in good faith and the said suit had been dismissed for want of defect in jurisdiction. According to the learned counsel the defect of non-joinder of the necessary parties which resulted in the dismissal of the earlier suit amounted to the defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature. In support of his contention/learned counsel places reliance on clause (c) of the Explanation to Section 14 of the Limitation Act Reliance is also placed by the learned counsel on two decisions of Honourable Supreme Court rendered in Zafar Khan v. Board of Revenue, U.P., AIR 1985 SC 39, and India Electric Works Ltd. v. James Mantosh, AIR 1971 SC 2313, and one decision of Sind Judicial Commissioner's Court given in Ibrahim v. Firm of Ghulam Hussain, AIR 1921 Sind 13.

7. For coming to the conclusion that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act could not be granted to the petitioner, the Tribunal has relied upon the decision of Honourable Supreme Court rendered in Gurdit Singh v. Munsha Singh, AIR 1977 SC 640.

8. In the case of Gurdit Singh v. Munsha Singh (supra), relied upon by t