9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 796X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emove the same and deliver possession of the property to the Plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 50/- from the date of suit till delivery of possession." The description of the property in the said decree was as under : "8 cents of property with trees, building, well and a bunk (mobile hut) and all appurtenants thereto in Survey 365 described in Pandara Otti Partition Deed (marked Vol-II Plan)", situated in Chengazhassery Village, Trivandrum." The said decree was put in execution by Fanuval Stephen, the Decree holder in Original Suit No.150 of 1965 being Execution Petition No.705 of 1977. Fanuval Stephen died on or about 28.3.1985. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein, being his heirs and legal representatives, were impleaded as additional decree holder Nos.2 to 6 therein. The said execution petition was dismissed by an order dated 8.7.1996. 4. The judgment debtor appears to have suffered another decree passed in Original Suit No.274 of 1982. Execution Petition No.271 of 1986 was filed for execution of the said decree. A sale certificate was issued in respect of the suit property. It is said to have been charged towards the satisfaction of the debt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al memorandum on which also the appeal was admitted is left open. Registry shall return the certified copies of documents produced by the appellants in this Execution Second Appeal to the counsel for the appellants." 8. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said observations, a Revision Application was filed by the appellant on 30.6.2008 which was marked as C.R.P. No.593 of 2008(B). Along with the said application, an application for condonation of delay in terms of Section 5 of the Act was also filed. However, later on the said application was withdrawn and an application under Section 14 thereof was filed. An affidavit was affirmed in support thereof, inter alia, stating : "The impugned order is dated 6.9.2005. The first appeal was filed on 3.10.2005. The second appeal was disposed of by this Hon'ble Court on 28.6.2008. This Revision Petition is filed on 7.7.2008. Hence in any view of the matter this Revision Petition is well within time. It is also submitted that the time taken for obtaining certified copies also is liable to be excluded." 9. By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court, however, opined that Section 14 of the Limitation Act is not attracted in the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicable as the same applied in a suit. It was pointed out that the appellants in fact filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act but withdrew the same. 12. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether only because a mistake has been committed by or on behalf of the appellants in approaching the appropriate forum for ventilating their grievances, the same would mean that the provision of Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which is otherwise available, should not be taken into consideration at all. The answer to the said question must be rendered in the negative. The provisions contained in Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act are meant for grant of relief where a person has committed some mistake. The provisions of Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act alike should, thus, be applied in a broad-based manner. When Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Limitation Act per se is not applicable, the same would not mean that the principles akin thereto would not be applied. Otherwise, the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the same would be applicable to a case of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the court may regard as relevant. It cannot justify an enquiry as to why the party was sitting idle during all the time available to it. In this connection we may point out that considerations of bona fides or due diligence are always material and relevant when the court is dealing with applications made under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. In dealing with such applications the court is called upon to consider the effect of the combined provisions of Sections 5 and 14. Therefore, in our opinion, considerations which have been expressly made material and relevant by the provisions of Section 14 cannot to the same extent and in the same manner be invoked in dealing with applications which fall to be decided only under Section 5 without reference to Section 14." In Ghasi Ram and Others v. Chait Ram Saini and Others [(1998) 6 SCC 200], this Court opined: "10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents urged that, assuming the High Court suffered from disability to decide the rights of party on facts, the plaintiff-appellant did not prosecute the revision petition before the High Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that there was no lack of due care, there is no reason why the plaintiff-appellant should not be accorded the benefits of Section 14 of the Act. Does the interest of justice demand that the plaintiff should be refused the benefit of Section 14 of the Act on account of the negligence on the part of his counsel, ill-advising him to file a revision instead of filing a fresh suit? An illiterate litigant cannot be made to suffer when he is ill-advised by his counsel. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that the plaintiff-appellant prosecuted the earlier civil proceeding in good faith." In Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department and Others [(2008) 7 SCC 167], this Court held: "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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
