Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.42 seconds)
Chait Ram Saini (Deceased By L.Rs) vs Ghasi Ram (Deceased By L.Rs) And Ors. on 5 September, 1985
cites
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
India Electric Works Ltd vs James Mantosh & Anr on 15 September, 1970
6. This case was referred with approval in the case of India Electric Works Limited (supra) although on the facts of the case it was found that the defect in the earlier suit was of such a nature which had to be decided before the claim could be disposed of on merits and, therefore, benefit of Section 14 was given.
Zafar Khan And Ors vs Board Of Revenue, U.P. & Ors on 31 July, 1984
8. The latest case on the point is Zafar Khan v. Board of Revenue, U.P. 1984 SCC (Suppl) 505 : (AIR 1985 SC 39) where a previous proceeding under Section 144 had been dismissed whereafter the suit giving rise to the appeal was filed. It was held that time spent by the plaintiff in prosecuting the proceedings under Section 144 could not be excluded with the aid of Section 14(1) of the Lim. Act. Explaining the term "cause of like nature", it was observed that it must take its colour and content from the just preceding expression, "defect of jurisdiction". Prima facie it appears that there must be some preliminary objection which if it succeeds, the Court would be incompetent to entertain the proceeding on merits, such defect could be said to be "of the like nature" as defect of jurisdiction.
Corporation Of Calcutta vs Pulin Chandra Daw And Ors. on 19 August, 1977
7. Much to the same effect is a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Corporation of Calcutta v. Pulin Chandra, AIR 1977 Cal 443. There also the words "or other cause of like nature" came in for interpretation and it was held that since the claim of the plaintiff in the prior suit had been adjudicated upon and disposed of on merits, it could not be said that the previous suit was misconceived or that the Courts were under any infirmity or there was any defect of jurisdiction or any defect of like nature which prevented the Courts from entertaining the earlier suit.
B. Chhuttan Lall vs B. Dwarka Prasad on 27 October, 1937
5. It is the consistent view prevailing now that to attract the application of Section 14(1) the parties seeking its benefit must satisfy the Court (1) that the plaintiff was prosecuting another civil proceeding with due diligence (2) that the earlier proceedings were based on the same cause of action and (3) the former proceeding was being prosecuted in good faith in a Court which from the defect of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature was unable to entertain it. At the relevant time, the word 'revision' was not used along with civil proceedings in the Court of first instance or the Court of appeal but the consistent view of this Court had been that the Court of revision was included therein. (See B. Chhuttan Lal v. B. Dwarka Prasad, AIR 1938 All 78). Due diligence is not disputed before me. It is also not disputed that the plaintiff had been prosecuting another civil proceeding against the appellant which was founded on the same cause of action. However, what is contended is that the Court where the proceeding was being taken was not one which was unable to entertain it (1) from defect of jurisdiction or (2) other cause of a like nature. For the appellant it is urged that although a revision had been filed while the plaintiff had a remedy of filing a suit open to him, the revision was not dismissed by the Court for lack of jurisdiction or such other cause of like nature. In fact the revision was heard by the Court on merits and was decided against the plaintiff. In such circumstances, it is urged that the plaintiff cannot take the benefit of Section 14 for extending the limitation.
1