Section 14 of the Limitation Act permits exclusion of time spent in prosecuting claims in forums lacking jurisdiction, provided the party acted with due diligence and in good faith.

1. The present appeal, filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 1and Section 13 of the Commercial Act, 20152, impugns the Judgment dated 18.05.20243 passed by the learned District Judge, Commercial Court-06, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi4, in CS (COMM) No. 194/2021 titled ‘Roopinder Singh vs. Emaar MGF Ltd. and Ors’.

2. By the Impugned Judgment, the learned Commercial Court dismissed the Appellant’s application filed under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 19635, seeking exclusion of the period spent in bona fide prosecution of the matter before the courts lacking jurisdiction. Consequently, the learned Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, holding the same to be barred by limitation.

BRIEF FACTS:

3. The Appellant had booked a commercial unit in the project titled “The Palm Square”, situated at Gurgaon, Haryana, being developed by the Respondents, in the year 2007, upon payment of a booking amount of Rs. 15,50,000/- through a cheque dated 25.10.2007.

4. Subsequently, by a letter dated 05.02.2008, the Appellant requested cancellation of the said booking, citing personal reasons.

5. The Appellant was issued a receipt dated 29.02.2008 and an acknowledgement letter dated 24.03.2008 by the Respondents. Further, by letter dated 10.03.2008, the Respondents issued an allotment letter in favour of the Appellant for Unit No. 1008 on the 10th floor of the said project.

6. Despite repeated requests made by the Appellant, the Respondents failed to refund the booking amount. By email dated 28.01.2009, the Respondents expressly refused to process the refund, stating that entertaining such requests would adversely affect the completion of the project.

7. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 22.07.2009 was issued by the Appellant to the Respondents, calling upon them to refund the booking amount. The Respondents replied to the same on 05.10.2009.

8. In December 2009, the Appellant filed a Complaint Case No. 1515/2008 before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandigarh6, which was allowed vide order dated 06.10.2010, directing the Respondents to refund the deposited amount along with interest and litigation costs.

9. In July 2011, the Respondents challenged the said order before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh7. Vide order dated 11.07.2011, the learned SCDRC allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the learned District Consumer Forum, holding that the Appellant was not a “consumer” within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 8.

10. Aggrieved by the order of the learned SCDRC, the Appellant preferred a Revision Petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at UT Chandigarh9. Vide order dated 28.11.2014, after hearing the matter for some time, the Appellant was permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to pursue appropriate remedies before a competent forum.

11. Pursuant to the said liberty, in February 2015, the Appellant instituted Civil Suit No. 279/2015 before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh10, seeking recovery of Rs. 15,50,000/- along with interest. However, the said plaint was returned vide order dated 24.09.2019 for want of territorial jurisdiction.

12. Thereafter, in November 2019, the Appellant initiated pre-institution mediation proceedings under the CC Act before the District Legal Services Authority, Saket Courts, New Delhi. However, the proceedings failed as the parties did not appear for mediation.

13. In March 2021, the Appellant instituted CS (COMM) No. 194/2021 before the learned Commercial Court, Saket, Delhi, seeking recovery of the booking amount along with interest.

14. Upon the Respondents raising an objection regarding the limitation, the Appellant filed an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, seeking exclusion of the period spent in bona fide prosecution of the matt