JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Karol, C.J.

1. The following issues arise for consideration in the present petition:

(a) Whether delay, in instituting a suit for recovery of money, before a Civil Court can be condoned by virtue of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (referred to as the Act) or not?

(b) Whether time spent by the plaintiffs in pursuing the matter before the consumer forum, in relation to the same matter in issue, can be excluded by virtue of Section 14 of the Act. As a corollary thereof, whether trial Court was right in rejecting the plaintiffs' request, seeking exclusion of time for the proceedings bona fidely instituted before a forum not having jurisdiction, particularly when such liberty stood granted?

2. Certain facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff-petitioners own and possess rubber plantation within the State of Tripura. Allegedly on 28th August, 2008, defendant-State Rubber Board deducted certain premiums towards the insurance policy, but did not remit the amount to the insurer. Unfortunately, on 22nd February, 2009, the said rubber plantation got gutted in fire. Vide notice dated 22nd March, 2010 and 4th May, 2010 plaintiffs set up their claim for compensation from the insurer. Vide response dated 21st May, 2010, their claim stood turned down. On 1st July, 2010, plaintiffs instituted a petition before the consumer forum claiming compensation, which holding the plaintiffs not to be consumer, vide order dated 6th September, 2013 stood rejected with liberty to institute a suit and take benefit of Section 14 of the Act. Resultantly, on 18th September, 2014, plaintiffs instituted a suit before a civil court having competent jurisdiction. Along with the plaint, an application both under Section 5 and Section 14 of the limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 1095 days was filed. The said application stands rejected by the trial court. Hence, the present revision petition.

3. Ordinarily, this Court would have not examined the first question but for the insistence of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that independent of plaintiffs' right seeking condonation of delay under Section 14 [in view of liberty granted by the Consumer Forum], even under Section 5 of the Act plaintiffs have got a right to seek condonation of delay. Hence, at the threshold, the Court proceeds to examine the first question.

Object & purpose of prescribing limitation:

4. In B. Madhuri Goud vs. B. Damodar Reddy, (2012) 12 SCC 693, the Apex Court held as under:

"The Limitation Act, 1963 has not been enacted with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they approach the court for vindication of their rights without unreasonable delay. The idea underlying the concept of limitation is that every remedy should remain alive only till the expiry of the period fixed by the legislature. At the same time, the courts are empowered to condone the delay provided that sufficient cause is shown by the applicant for not availing the remedy within the prescribed period of limitation."

5. In fact, in Damodaran Pillai & others vs. South Indian Bank Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 300, the Court observed that the principles underlying the provisions prescribing limitation are based on public policy aiming at justice, to repose, peace and prompt decision. Further hardship or injustice cannot be a ground for extending the period of limitation.

Statutory provisions:

6. The language of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 of the Act is unambiguously clear. For the purposes of ready reference, the same is reproduced as under:

"3. Bar of limitation.--(1) Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence.

(2) For the purposes of this Act,--

(a) a suit is instituted,--

(i) in an ordinary case, when the plaint is presented to the proper officer;

(ii) in the case of a pauper, when his appl