VoxJuris
Home › Acts › Limitation Act, 1963 › Chapter III › Section 14

Limitation Act, 1963 · Chapter III: Computation of Period of Limitation

Section 14: Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction

In plain words

Time spent pursuing a case in good faith and with due diligence in a court that could not hear it, for lack of jurisdiction or a similar reason, is left out when counting the time limit for a fresh case.

  • The earlier case must be against the same party and about the same matter or relief.
  • It applies to earlier proceedings in a court of first instance, appeal or revision.
  • It also applies to a fresh suit filed with the court's permission under Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, when the first suit would have failed for lack of jurisdiction or a similar defect.
  • Both the day the earlier case started and the day it ended are counted as part of the excluded time.
  • Wrongly joining parties or causes of action counts as a defect similar to lack of jurisdiction.

Example: A files a suit in the wrong court in good faith. Years later it is returned for lack of jurisdiction. The time spent there is left out when A sues in the right court.

A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.

Read the in-depth explanation, with key Supreme Court rulings ↓

Official text

(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.

Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 15 October 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.

Understanding this section

Section 14 excludes the time a party spent pursuing another civil proceeding in good faith and with due diligence, in a court that could not entertain it for want of jurisdiction or a similar defect. The earlier proceeding must relate to the same matter and be against the same party.

The conditions

ConditionWhat it means
Both proceedings civilThe earlier proceeding must be a civil proceeding, including appeal or revision
Same matter in issueThe earlier and later cases must turn on substantially the same issue
Same partiesAgainst the same defendant or opposite party
Good faith and due diligenceHonest pursuit with due care, not a tactic
Defect of jurisdiction or like causeThe earlier court could not decide the case on its merits

Wide reading

Courts read section 14 liberally because it advances justice. It applies to applications to set aside arbitral awards, since the Arbitration Act does not exclude it. Even where the section does not apply in terms, for example before a quasi judicial authority, its underlying principle may be used to exclude time.

Key Supreme Court rulings

Common mistakes

  • Treating a case lost on the merits as eligible. Section 14 covers proceedings that failed for want of jurisdiction or a like defect.
  • Confusing section 14, which excludes time, with section 5, which condones delay.

Read with: Section 5 Limitation Act, 1963, Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Prepared with AI assistance as a study aid. Every ruling listed was checked against the Supreme Court's own judgments on this site, and quoted words appear in those judgments; linked names open the full judgment. Read the judgments themselves before relying on them. Not legal advice.

Supreme Court judgments citing the section 14