Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction
Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 deals with exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction. In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same ma The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1964.
(1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.
(2) In computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 2 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), the provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply in relation to a fresh suit instituted on permission granted by the court under rule 1 of that Order, where such permission is granted on the ground that the first suit must fail by reason of a defect in the jurisdiction of the court or other cause of a like nature.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,—
(a) in excluding the time during which a former civil proceeding was pending, the day on which that proceeding was instituted and the day on which it ended shall both be counted;
(b) a plaintiff or an applicant resisting an appeal shall be deemed to be prosecuting a proceeding;
(c) misjoinder of parties or of causes of action shall be deemed to be a cause of a like nature with defect of jurisdiction.
Section 14, The Limitation Act, 1963 (Act 36 of 1963).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 31
- Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 and Rules s. 52 Limitation and Court Fees
- Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu Highways Act s. 35 Reference against award of Highway Authority or authorised officer under section 28
- Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu Highways Act s. 44 Reference against order of authorised officer under section 42
- Goa, Daman & Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act s. 52 Limitation and Court Fees
- Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act s. 52 Limitation and Court Fees
- Goa, Daman and Diu Highways Act s. 35 Reference against award of Highway Authority or authorised officer under section 28
- Goa, Daman and Diu Highways Act s. 44 Reference against order of authorised officer under section 42
- Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code s. 195 Application of limitation Act, 1963
- Goa Highways Act s. 35 Reference against award of Highway Authority or authorised officer under section 28
- Goa Highways Act s. 44 Reference against order of authorised officer under section 42
- Goa Land Revenue Code s. 195 Application of limitation Act, 1963
- Goa Panchayat Raj Act s. 239 District Planning Committee
and 19 more
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 43 makes the Limitation Act applicable to arbitrations as to court proceedings; s.34 applications therefore attract Limitation Act exclusions. Time spent bona fide in a court without jurisdiction is excludable under Limitation Act s.14 (mandatory exclusion), whereas s.5 extension is unavailable against the s.34(3) ‘but not thereafter’ outer limit. DATE-VERIFIED Judgement order-8.pdf 2008-04-03.
On this section: Limitation Act s.14 exclusion of time in a bona fide wrong-forum proceeding is not shut out by A&C Act s.34(3); 34(3) bars extension, not 14 exclusion (Consolidated Engineering Enterprises).
-
Ongc LTD vs Modern Construction and CO
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a plaint is returned from a court lacking territorial jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 10 CPC and subsequently presented in a court of competent jurisdiction, the plaint must be treated as a fresh suit not as a continuation of the original suit. Consequently, interest on money decrees accrues from the date of presentation in the competent court, not from the date of original institution in the incompetent court. While Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1963 permits exclusion of the period spent before the incompetent court for limitation purposes, this exclusion does not apply to interest calculation. Further, a party cannot be permitted to benefit from its own mistake in choosing an incompetent forum, and the executing court cannot go behind the decree by reinterpreting the words thereof.
On this section: Protection against bar of limitation for suits bonafidely presented on merit but failing due to lack of court jurisdiction; applied to allow exclusion of period before competent court but only for limitation purposes, not for interest calculation
-
Mamtaben M Patel vs Mukul Thakorebhai Amin
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An application to set aside an auction sale under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 must be filed within 60 days from the date of proclamation of sale as prescribed under Article 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This is a strict limitation period, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act (which provides for condonation of delay) does not apply to applications under Order XXI of CPC. To claim benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act (exclusion of time spent in prosecuting another civil proceeding), the applicant must prove that the other proceedings were prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith in a court without jurisdiction. If an application is barred by limitation, the court need not go into the merits of the case, and the issue of limitation must be decided first before considering other grounds for setting aside the sale.
On this section: Provides for exclusion of time during which applicant was prosecuting another civil proceeding in good faith in a court without jurisdiction. Court held that to claim benefit of Section 14, the applicant must prove that the other proceedings were prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith. In this case, the writ petition was not filed in good faith as counsel had already stated intention to file objections, and continuation of writ petition after withdrawal of SLP was neither in good faith nor with due diligence.
-
The Maharashtra State Coop. Housing. Fin. C vs Prabhakar Sitaram Bhadange
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Service disputes between employees of a cooperative society and the society as employer do not fall within the scope of disputes cognizable by a Cooperative Court established under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960, as such disputes do not touch upon the constitution, elections, management or business of the cooperative society. Although the Cooperative Court functions as a substitute for the civil court, being a creature of statute, it possesses only those powers explicitly granted by the statute and cannot assume all powers of the civil court. An employee of a cooperative society who cannot be characterized as a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, who is not a public servant, and whose employer is not a statutory body with mandatory employment obligations, cannot claim reinstatement relief. Such an employee's sole remedy is to file a civil suit seeking a declaration of wrongful termination and damages, subject to applicable limitation periods.
On this section: Court permitted the respondent to apply for condonation of delay under Section 14 if filing a civil suit, to save the extended limitation period
-
Ongc LTD vs Gujarat Energy Transmission Corp(l)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a special statute (such as the Electricity Act, 2003) prescribes a specific limitation period with a defined outer limit (120 days under Section 125), that limitation is mandatory and reflects fundamental public policy favoring expeditious resolution. Neither Article 142 of the Constitution nor Section 5 of the Limitation Act can extend such limitation period beyond the statutory outer limit. An order previously condoning delay beyond the prescribed limit should be recalled and ignored. The preliminary objection based on such non-condonable delay is maintainable and must be accepted, resulting in dismissal of the appeal without consideration of merits.
On this section: Provides exclusion of time taken in bona fide pursuit of a remedy with due diligence. Court held that Section 14 principles can apply to exclude time spent in review proceedings, but only if pursued with reasonable diligence and good faith.
-
Purbanchal Cables & Conductors P. LTD vs Assam State Electricity Board
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993, is a substantive law creating new vested rights and liabilities. Being substantive law, it operates prospectively from its commencement date of 23.09.1992 and does not apply to contracts/supply orders entered into prior to this date, even if supplies were made after the Act came into force. The Act does not have retrospective operation absent express legislative language indicating such intention. However, a suit for recovery of interest alone (without principal) is maintainable under Section 6 of the Act when interest has accrued due to delayed payment after the Act's commencement.
On this section: Court examined whether Section 14 (pending litigation) applies and noted that absent express legislative intendment barring application of Limitation Act, the Act applies to suits under 1993 Act. Referred to Mukri Gopalan case holding that for Limitation Act to be barred, special law must provide time schedule.
-
P. Radha Bai vs P. Ashok Kumar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is expressly excluded from application to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The express exclusion is inferred from the language of Section 34(3), particularly the phrase 'but not thereafter' which creates an absolute outer boundary of 120 days for challenging arbitral awards. This exclusion is also necessarily implied from the scheme and object of the Arbitration Act, which is to provide speedy dispute resolution with finality and certainty of awards. Once a party receives an arbitral award, the three-month limitation period commences, and subsequent fraud or mistake by the other party cannot defer the commencement of this period or extend the outer 120-day boundary. The principle of 'unbreakability' of the limitation period, enshrined in the UNCITRAL Model Law, precludes any extension beyond the prescribed period.
On this section: Effect of acknowledgment; extended to Section 34 of Arbitration Act in prior judgments
-
Sunitidevi Singhania Hospital Trust vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a tribunal fails to consider contentions raised before it by a party and such contentions are raised within a reasonable time in an application for reconsideration, the limitation period specified in the relevant statute does not bar the tribunal from reconsidering the matter on merit, as principles of natural justice and the inherent power of the tribunal to correct errors in not addressing contentions override statutory limitation provisions. A tribunal must address all contentions raised before it to ensure justice, and when brought to its notice that contentions were not considered, it is the appropriate authority to consider those contentions, provided the application is filed within reasonable time and shows prima facie correct contentions.
On this section: Court held this has no application in customs matter as limitation is specifically governed by Customs Act; but emphasized that applications filed within reasonable time should be entertained on merit
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… been filed without complying with the provision, owing to the lack of clarity on the mandatory nature of the provision, would be susceptible to being rejected and the court fees submitted at the time of their institution being written off. The Court further expressed apprehensions as regards the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to fresh suits filed after the rejection of plaint for noncompliance with Section 12A and thus held that it would be in the best interest of justice that the declaration of mandatory compliance with Section 12A be given prospectivity to avoid the aforesaid complexities from cropping up. - …
-
… only to that extent of the area which is covered under the ACA, and hence Section 5 is excluded by virtue of the stipulation of the mandatory 30-day condonable period under Section 34(3).[30]( page-20-0) 21. A three-judge bench of this Court in Consolidated Engineering Enterprises (supra) also held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act applies to Section 34(3). Merely because Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands excluded, does not lead to a conclusion that other provisions are also excluded.[31]( page-20-1) Adopting a similar reasoning as Western Builders (supra), the Court held that there is no provision in the ACA that …
-
… He also submits that though the appellantinsurance company raised the defence that the claim was barred by limitation, yet the Arbitral Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the respondent-claimant giving the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that in the peculiar facts and circumstance of the present case, the ends of justice would be met if the appellant-insurance company is directed to pay interest as directed by the Arbitral Tribunal @ 12% per …
Questions about Section 14
What have the courts held on Section 14 of the Limitation Act?
Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department (03 Apr 2008) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Limitation Act s.14 exclusion of time in a bona fide wrong-forum proceeding is not shut out by A&C Act s.34(3); 34(3) bars extension, not 14 exclusion (Consolidated Engineering Enterprises). Another 7 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2020.
How do I find court cases under Section 14 of the Limitation Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Limitation Act 14, section 14 Limitation Act, section 14 of the Limitation Act. People searching for it also type limitation act 14a. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 8 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department (03 Apr 2008).
What should I read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, and has it changed?
31 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it.
When did Section 14 of the Limitation Act come into force?
Section 14 of the Limitation Act, cited as Limitation Act 14, came into force on 01 Jan 1964, having been enacted on 05 Oct 1963. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 30. Provision for suits, etc., for which the prescribed period is shorter than the period prescribed by the Indian Limitation Act, 1908557 words
- 17. Effect of fraud or mistake401 words
- 2. Definitions363 words
- 15. Exclusion of time in certain other cases347 words
- 6. Legal disability283 words
- 18. Effect of acknowledgment in writing245 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.