A plaintiff cannot exclude time under S.14 of the Limitation Act if the filing in a wrong court resulted from lack of due care and good faith.

1.The short question that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision filed by the plaintiff in a suit on accounts is: What is the condition which should be satisfied so that the period of pendency of a suit filed in a court which had no jurisdiction to try the same can be excluded in computing the period of limitation for the suit? If the plaintiff did not act with due care and attention and filed the suit in a wrong court can he take shelter under S.14 of the Limitation Act, 1963?

2. The plaintiff, a partnership doing business, had a petrol bunk at Parur within the jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court, Parur. The defendant residing within the jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court, Perumbavoor purchased petrol and oil from the hunk. As per the accounts kept by the plaintiffs at their head office at Mattancherry some amounts were due from the defendant. For that a suit was instituted before the Munsiff's Court, Cochin. After trial, the Munsiffs Court, Cochin found that it had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and returned the plaint for presentation before the proper court. The plaint was taken back and then filed before the Munsiff's Court, Parur. That court held that the plaintiff was entitled to exclude the time taken for prosecuting the case before the Munsiff's Court, Cochin under S.14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and decreed the suit for that portion of the plaint claim which was not barred by limitation. Against the above judgment and decree, the defendant filed an appeal before the Additional District Court, Parur. The Additional District Judge held that the plaintiff did not act with due care and attention in filing the suit before the Munsiff's Court, Cochin and hence the plaintiff was not entitled to exclude the time taken for prosecuting the case before that court under S.14 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly, the lower appellate court set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has challenged the above judgment and decree of the court below in this civil revision.

3. S.14(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963, for short the Limitation Act, reads:
14. ''Exclusion of time of proceedings bona fide in court without jurisdiction.-- (1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect, of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature, is unable to entertain it."
S.2(h) of the Limitation Act which defines 'good faith' reads:
''(h) 'good faith '- nothing shall be deemed to be done in good faith which is not done with due care and attention."
As per S.14(1) in computing the period of limitation for any suit the time taken to prosecute the same in a wrong court shall be excluded if it was prosecuted in that court in good faith. In view of the definition of 'good faith' contained in S.2(h) of the Limitation Act the definition of 'good faith' in The General Clauses Act, 1897 that 'a thing shall be deemed to be done in good faith where it is in fact done honestly, whether it is done negligently or not' is not relevant in construing S.14 of the Limitation Act. So, if going by the plaint itself the suit was filed and prosecuted before a court which cannot entertain the same for want of jurisdiction it cannot be said that that was done with due care and attention. For proving absence of good faith it is not necessary to establish that the plaintiff was dishonest in filing the suit before the wrong court or that he did it mala fide. In view of the defini