IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF ON THE 06^th OF FEBRUARY, 2024 ARBITRATION REVISION No. 36 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

M/S COMPACT BUILDERS PARTNER MR. RAKESH KOHLI S/O LATE SHRI G.M. KOHLI HIG PLOT NO. 23, JDA COLONY, KATANGA, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI ROHIT TANEJA - ADVOCATE)

AND JABALPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CIVIC CENTER, MARHATAL, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT BY SHRI MUKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL -

ADVOCATE)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon’ble Shri Justice SHEEL NAGU passed the following:

ORDER

Present revision petition has been filed assailing final order passed on

17.02.2023 in Reference Case No.07/2020 by M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal (for brevity “Tribunal”) whereby Reference Petition filed by petitioner herein u/S.7 of M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for brevity “Adhiniyam of 1983”) was dismissed as time barred and while doing so Tribunal declined to extent benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act as claimed by petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for rival parties are heard on the question of admission so also final disposal.

3. Bare facts involved herein are that cause of action arose to petitioner on 30.01.2013 when contract in question was terminated by respondents. Indisputably, claim in question was more than Rs.50,000/- and yet petitioner instead of approaching the Tribunal under Clause 28 of the agreement filed a civil suit on 03.05.2013 in which after filing of written statement on 06.02.2015 preliminary issues were framed on 25.02.2015 whereafter said suit was dismissed as being not maintainable on 29.11.2019 for being time barred u/S.20 of Adhiniyam, 1983. Thereafter, petitioner preferred a Reference Petition before Tribunal under Adhiniyam, 1983 on 25.01.2020, which has now been dismissed by impugned order on 17.02.2023 as being not maintainable for being time barred by limitation.

4. After having heard learned counsel for rival parties, this Court is of the considered view that benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act ought to have been extended to petitioner for the reasons infra:-

(i) Petitioner appears to have diligently pursued the remedy in shape of civil suit, which was though barred by Section 20 of Adhiniyam, 1983, but after civil suit was dismissed as not maintainable on 29.11.2019, petitioner without further delay approached the Tribunal on 25.01.2020 by filing Reference Petition;

(ii) The Apex Court while interpreting scope and sweep of Section 14 of Limitation Act in (2008) 7 SCC 169 (Consolidated Engineering Enterprises vs. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department & Ors.)

held thus:-

“21. Section 14 of the Limitation Act deals with exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in a court without jurisdiction. On analysis of the said section, it becomes evident that the following conditions must be satisfied before Section 14 can be pressed into service:

(1) Both the prior and subsequent proceedings are civil proceedings prosecuted by the same party;

(2) The prior proceeding had been prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith;

(3) The failure of the prior proceeding was due to defect of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature;

(4) The earlier proceeding and the latter proceeding must relate to the same matter in issue and;

(5) Both the proceedings are in a court.

22. The policy of the section is to afford protection to a litigant against the bar of limitation when he institutes a proceeding which by reason of some technical defect cannot be decided on merits and is dismissed. While considering the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, proper approach will have to be adopted and the provisions will have to be interpreted so as to advance the cause of justice rather than abort the proceedings. It will be well to bear in mind that an element of