Bona fide prosecution of writ remedy warrants exclusion of time under Section 14 for subsequent civil suits.

The Appellant executed site-enabling works for a Sewage Treatment Plant for Respondent No. 1, claiming an outstanding balance of ₹96.00 lakhs

In 2013, the Appellant filed a writ petition (OWP No. 1516/2013) for recovery

Although initially allowed, the order was set aside by a Division Bench in 2015 and remitted for fresh consideration

The writ remained pending until 2022, during which it was briefly dismissed for non-prosecution in October 2021 but restored in April 2022

On May 30, 2022, the Appellant withdrew the writ with liberty to pursue a civil remedy after the Respondent raised objections regarding its maintainability as a private contract dispute

A civil suit was filed on July 9, 2022, accompanied by an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to exclude the time spent in writ proceedings

The trial court dismissed the suit on August 19, 2025, as time-barred, holding that the Appellant lacked due diligence and bona fides

1. Whether the time spent prosecuting a writ petition from 2013 to 2022 constitutes a "prior proceeding" pursued with due diligence and good faith under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963

2. Whether a temporary dismissal for non-prosecution in a prior proceeding, which was subsequently restored, precludes the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act

Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, provides for the exclusion of time spent in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain the proceeding, provided it was prosecuted in good faith

The court relied on Madhavrao Narayanrao Patwardhan v. Ramakrishna Govind Bhanu (1959 SCR 564), which mandates five conditions for Section 14: identity of parties, due diligence, failure due to jurisdictional defect/similar cause, identity of subject matter, and both proceedings being in a "court"

Roshanlal Kuthalia v. R.B. Mohan Singh Oberoi (1975 4 SCC 628) established that "other cause of a like nature" should be interpreted liberally to include any legal or factual circumstance inhibiting a court from considering the merits

Purni Devi & Anr. v. Babu Ram & Anr. (2024 INSC 259) reinforced that time spent in a forum believed to be appropriate must be excluded

The High Court found that the trial court adopted a "hyper-technical approach" that frustrated the ends of justice

It held that the Appellant satisfied the requirements of Section 14, as pursuing a writ petition (which was initially allowed) until maintainability objections were formally addressed constitutes a bona fide exercise of legal recourse

The court rejected the trial court’s finding of a "lack of diligence" based on the 2021 dismissal for non-prosecution; it reasoned that since the Writ Court had restored the petition, the trial court could not "go behind" that restoration to penalize the Appellant

Furthermore, the court emphasized that a litigant cannot be penalized for the nine-year pendency of a matter, as the pace of adjudication and "docket load" are beyond their control

The phrase "other cause of a like nature" is wide enough to encompass misdirected litigation pursued without bad faith

It held that the Appellant is entitled to the exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, as they acted with due diligence and good faith

The matter was remitted to the trial court for disposal on its merits, with a direction for the parties to appear on April 24, 2026