IMPORTANT POINT
When the jurisdiction to grant exemption u/s 14 of the limitation Act is exclusively given to the Civil Court before which suit is filed, it is not correct or proper for the High Court to consider eligibility for exemption of petitioner while dismissing a Petition

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. —Appellant was the main contractor engaged by the National Highway Authority of India for construction of a road in Karnataka. Pursuant to agreement with the third respondent for construction of a road, the appellant entered into a contract with first respondent for supply of certain quantities of boulders and crushed aggregates at the rates provided in the agreement between parties. Dispute cropped up between appellant and first respondent when the appellant rejected first respondent’s claim for huge amount of above Rs. 9.68 crores, which claim was not only denied by the appellant, but they even made counter claim against the first respondent. According to the appellant, the claim made for the first time by the first respondent vide Ext. P1 on 1.4.2005 was denied by the appellant vide Ext R3 (a) reply sent on 4.5.2005 and consequently if at all the claim is to be enforced through a court of law, the first respondent should have filed a suit within three years from the date of denial of liability by the appellant i.e., by May 2008. Admittedly the first respondent neither filed any suit in time nor filed suit even as of now. In between, the first respondent approached the second respondent with a representation to settle the dispute and on their failure, a Writ Petition was filed before this Court and this Court issued direction to the second respondent to consider the representation. This was rejected by the second respondent vide Ex P9 order stating that for settlement of dispute arising out of breach of contract between the appellant and first respondent, it is for them to settle and not by the Government. It is against this order issued by the Government of India that the first respondent filed Writ Petition before this Court in 2006. During pendency of the said W.P. (C) te first respondent filed C.M.P. No. 143/208 before the Karnataka High Court under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for appointment of an Arbitrator for settlement of dispute between the parties. However, the Karnataka High Court vide judgment dated 31.7.2009 produced as Ex R3(c) dismissed the petition filed by the first respondent.

2. The first respondent has not challenged the judgment of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the request for appointment of Arbitrator. While so, WP (C) filed in this Court by the first respondent in 2006 came up before the learned Single Judge for hearing. Even though the first respondent’s main prayer i.e. for direction to the appellant to pay the amount and settle the claim was turned down by the Single Judge, the Single Judge made an observation that having regard to the fact that WP (C) was pending in this court from 19.6.2006 onwards, the first respondent “should be given the benefit of exclusion of the period as provided in Section 14 of the Limitation Act.” This observation in the judgment of the learned Single Judge entitles the first respondent to file a belated suit against the appellant and it is on this apprehension the appellant has filed this Writ Appeal challenging the above observation of the learned Single Judge declaring and recognizing the entitlement of the first respondent for benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. We have heard Senior Counsel Sri Chitambaresh appearing for the appellant and Senior Counsel Sri Ramakuar appearing for the first respondent.

3. During hearing counsel for the appellant even challenged territorial jurisdiction of this Court to make an observation with regard to entitlement of the first respondent under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for the reason that if at all a suit is to be filed, it is to be doe in Karnataka and so much so, Section 14 benefit if any to be claimed by the first respondent should be with reference to Ex. R3 (c) judgment of the Karnataka High Court in CMP No. 143 of 2008 dated 31.7.2009 issued in the petition filed by the first respondent for appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the