The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has clarified that time spent in a writ petition dismissed on jurisdictional grounds may be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, provided the litigant acted with due diligence and bona fides. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural missteps, when not motivated by negligence or mala fide, should not deprive a claimant of substantive rights.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, M/s HSL Enterprises, entered into a contract with respondent No. 1, M/s Thermax Ltd., to execute site-enabling works for a 30 MLD Sewage Treatment Plant at Bhagwati Nagar, Jammu. The appellant completed the works and received partial payment, but ₹96.00 lakhs remained unpaid. Despite repeated demands, the amount was not released.
Key Facts
- The appellant filed a writ petition, OWP No. 1516/2013, on 15.07.2013, naming the State of J&K, UT of Jammu and Kashmir, and Economic Reconstruction Agency (ERA) as respondents.
- The writ petition sought enforcement of payment under Article 226 of the Constitution.
- The writ petition was initially allowed by the Single Judge on 31.10.2013.
- Respondent No. 1 challenged the order in LPA No. 06/2014.
- On 02.02.2015, the Division Bench of this Court set aside the Single Judge’s order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
- The writ petition remained pending for nearly nine years.
- On 27.10.2021, the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
- The appellant filed an application for restoration, which was granted on 13.04.2022.
- On 30.05.2022, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to pursue a civil remedy.
- The appellant filed the civil suit on 09.07.2022.
Procedural History
- 15.07.2013: Writ petition (OWP No. 1516/2013) filed before the High Court.
- 31.10.2013: Single Judge allowed the writ petition.
- 02.02.2015: Division Bench set aside the order and remanded the matter.
- 27.10.2021: Writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution.
- 13.04.2022: Writ petition restored by the High Court.
- 30.05.2022: Writ petition withdrawn with liberty to file a civil suit.
- 09.07.2022: Civil suit (No. 434/2025) filed before the Commercial Court, Jammu.
- 19.08.2025: Trial court dismissed the suit, holding it barred by limitation and rejecting the application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
- 20.03.2026: Appeal filed before the Division Bench under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
- 10.04.2026: Judgment pronounced.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought exclusion of the period from 15.07.2013 to 30.05.2022 (approximately 9 years) under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and continuation of the civil suit on its merits.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the time spent in prosecuting a writ petition, which was ultimately dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and later withdrawn with liberty to file a civil suit, qualifies for exclusion under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, provided the litigant acted with due diligence and bona fides.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Mr. Ashish Sharma, Advocate, argued that the appellant pursued the writ petition in good faith, believing it to be an appropriate forum for enforcement of its contractual claim. He emphasized that the writ petition was initially allowed, restored after dismissal for non-prosecution, and withdrawn only after the court explicitly granted liberty to pursue a civil remedy. He relied on Madhavrao Narayanrao Patwardhan v. Ramakrishna Govind Bhanu and Purni Devi v. Babu Ram to assert that the conditions under Section 14 were fully satisfied: the prior proceeding was civil in nature, prosecuted diligently, and failed due to a jurisdictional defect.
For the Respondent
Mr. R. S. Lalotra, Advocate, contended that the appellant wilfully pursued an inappropriate remedy for nearly nine years despite clear objections to maintainability. He argued that the prolonged pendency, including the dismissal in 2021, demonstrated lack of due diligence and bad faith. He submitted that Section 14 cannot be invoked by a litigant who clings to a clearly non-remedial forum, and that the trial court was correct in rejecting the exclusion plea.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the legal framework under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the conditions laid down in Madhavrao Narayanrao Patwardhan v. Ramakrishna Govind Bhanu and Roshanlal Kuthalia v. R.B. Mohan Singh Oberoi. It held that the term "other cause of a like nature" is broad enough to encompass situations where a litigant, acting in good faith, approaches a forum lacking jurisdiction.
"The expression 'other cause of a like nature' is wide enough to cover the appellant's bona fide, even though ultimately related to a misdirected litigation before the writ court."
The Court rejected the trial court’s hyper-technical view that the dismissal in 2021 for non-prosecution negated the appellant’s bona fides. It emphasized that the restoration of the writ petition on 13.04.2022 legally cured the earlier procedural lapse, and the court could not revisit that order to infer lack of diligence. The Court observed:
"Legally, once a matter is restored, the trial court cannot 'go behind' that order to comment on prior non-prosecution as evidence of lack of diligence."
It further noted that the pendency of litigation is beyond the litigant’s control, and penalizing the appellant for the court’s own backlog would defeat the object of the Limitation Act, which is to prevent unjust deprivation of remedies, not to punish procedural delays caused by systemic inefficiencies.
The Court also relied on Purni Devi & Anr. v. Babu Ram & Anr. (2024 INSC 259), where the Supreme Court held that a litigant pursuing a matter in a forum believed to be appropriate must be granted the benefit of Section 14, provided the conditions are met.
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed. The impugned order dated 19.08.2025 dismissing the suit as barred by limitation was set aside. The matter was remitted to the trial court for disposal on its merits. The parties were directed to appear before the trial court on 24.04.2026. The period from 15.07.2013 to 30.05.2022 was excluded in computing the limitation period for the civil suit.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bona Fide Litigation Trumps Technical Defects
- Practitioners may now confidently invoke Section 14 where a client pursued a writ petition or other forum in good faith, even if the forum lacked jurisdiction.
- The burden shifts to the respondent to prove mala fide or gross negligence - not mere delay or procedural setbacks.
Restoration Cures Prior Non-Prosecution
- A dismissal for non-prosecution is not fatal to a Section 14 plea if the matter is later restored.
- Courts must accept the legal effect of restoration orders and not re-examine prior procedural lapses as evidence of bad faith.
Systemic Delays Cannot Be Imputed to Litigants
- Pendency caused by court backlogs, delayed hearings, or procedural delays in higher forums cannot be used to deny exclusion of time.
- Litigants are entitled to rely on judicial processes without being penalized for delays outside their control.
Documentary Evidence of Liberty to Sue Is Critical
- Withdrawal of a writ petition with explicit liberty to file a civil suit (as recorded in the order dated 30.05.2022) strengthens the claim under Section 14.
- Practitioners must ensure such liberty is expressly recorded in court orders to preserve the right to invoke Section 14.
The Doctrine of Due Diligence Is Contextual
- Due diligence is not measured by speed but by consistent, non-negligent pursuit of a remedy.
- A litigant who files, appears, responds, and seeks restoration is presumed diligent unless proven otherwise.
