Section 14 of the Limitation Act does not apply to suits dismissed due to misconception or because the proceeding was not recognized by law as legal in its initiation.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under S. 23 of the Madhya Bharat High Court Act from a decision of Menta, J. , of the Madhya Bharat High Court in Civil First Appeal No. 95 of 1948. By that decision the learned Judge modified the decree of the District judge, Sailana, and gave to the plaintiff-respondent a decree for Rs. 1,316-4-0 and for the recovery of certain shares or in lieu thereof a sum of Rs. 745 as the value of the shares from the appellant.

( 2 ) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that Santokhbai instituted a suit against Bherulal on 31st December 1946, for the recovery of a sum of money on account of various items amounting to Rs. 2,705-14-6 on he allegation that Bherulal's father Kashiram was her Mukhtar-Am and used to look after her business affairs and receive Galla on her behalf; that Kashiram died on 13th February 1943, without explaining to her the accounts of her business; and that Bherulal was thereafter asked to render the accounts but he did not do so. On 5th December 1944, Santokhbai had filed a suit for rendition of accounts against bherulal. That suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 5th December 1946, on the ground that a suit for rendition of accounts did not lie against the son of a deceased mukhtar. The present suit was filed after the dismissal of the suit for rendition of accounts. The suit was resisted by the defendant mainly on the ground that it was barred by time and that in view of a settlement arrived at between the parties and contained in Ex. D-l, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover any amount from the defendant. The trial Court held that the suit was governed by Article 120 of the limitation Act and was within time; and that Section 14 of the Limitation Act had no application. The plaintiff's claim was decreed by the trial Court to the extent of rs. 2,409-8-6. Bherulal then appealed to the Madhya Bharat High Court.

( 3 ) BHERULAL's main contention in the appeal was that the plaintiffs suit was governed by Article 89 of the Limitation Act, and was barred by time. Mehta, J. , accepted this contention and held that the suit not having been filed within three years from the date of the termination of the agency, that is from the date of the death of Kashiram, it was barred by time. He further held that the plaintiff was entitled under Section 14, Limitation Act, to the deduction of the time taken in the prosecution of the prior suit for rendition of accounts as the plaintiff had prosecuted that suit with due diligence. The learned Judge further held that in accordance with the settlement embodied in Ex. D-l, the plaintiff was not entitled to sue for the recovery of certain amounts. Accordingly, the learned Judge modified the decree of the lower Court in the manner indicated above.

( 4 ) IN this appeal the main contention of Mr. Chitale, learned counsel for the appellant, is that Section 14 of the Limitation Act could not be invoked in this case as the plaintiff's prior suit was dismissed; not on account of defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, but that it was entertained and then dismissed because the relief of the rendition of accounts was not available against the son of a deceased agent. Learned counsel relied on V. C. Thani Chettiar v. Dakshinamurthy Mudaliar, (S) AIR 1955 Mad 288 (A); Nakul Chandra Ghose v. Shyamapada Ghose, AIR 1945 Cal 381 (B); and Ramanand Prasad v. Gaya Prasad ram, AIR 1949 Pat 362 (C ). ( 5 ) IN our opinion, the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant must be given effect to. We have no doubt that Section 14 of the Limitation Act has no application to the facts of this case and the plaintiff is not entitled to the benefit of that section. Before that section can apply, the prior proceeding must have been founded upon the same cause of action as that on which the later suit is founded and the Court in which the prior proceeding was prosecuted must have been unable to entertain it for the reasons specified, na