Corporate Lawyer: Sec 14 Limitation Act is only applicable when the subject matter is one and same; SC.

Supreme Court of India

Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

It was held by the SC {M/S NATESAN AGENCIES (PLANTATIONS) v. STATE REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS DEPARTMENT} that for the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act and exclusion of the time spent in earlier proceeding, the matter in issue in both the earlier and the later proceeding must be the same. This is apart from the other requirements that the previous proceeding had been civil proceeding, which were being prosecuted by the plaintiff with due diligence and in a Court which, from the defect of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature, was unable to entertain the same though the plaintiff had been prosecuting in that Court in good faith.

In the present case, it was held by the SC that except the fact that the earlier writ petition in challenge to the exclusion order dated 19.11.1993 was civil proceeding and the plaintiff might have been prosecuting with due diligence, none of the other requirements of Section 14 of the Limitation Act are satisfied.

It was held that the basic requirement, that the matter in issue in the earlier and the later proceeding ought to be the same; and both the proceedings, earlier and later, ought to relate to the same cause of action and for the same relief, is totally missing in present case. Rather, the matter in issue in the earlier proceeding could well be contradistinguished from the matter in issue in the present suit. It was held in the said earlier proceeding, the plaintiff-appellant joined the Mutt to assert that the respondent-State was not entitled to exclude the land in question from sanctuary; and that the State ought to take the land and ought to pay compensation as proposed by some of its officers. It was held, on the other hand, the claim in the present suit is founded on the ground that the plaintiff has suffered loss due to the proceedings under the Act of 1972 and then, due to exclusion of the subject land from acquisition. It was further held that the relief claimed in the present suit and matter in issue herein cannot be said to be the same as had been in issue in the earlier proceeding i.e., the said writ petition against the exclusion order dated 19.11.1993. Apart from the fact that the earlier proceeding i.e., the said writ petition was for a different relief for quashing the exclusion order dated 19.11.1993, it was held that the said writ petition was dismissed on merit and not for want of jurisdiction. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act was totally ruled out by the SC in the present case. And, accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, by the SC holding that suit was rightly dismissed by the courts below.