Source: Calcutta High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Bibhas Ranjan De held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (LA) protects the period of limitation when proceedings are withdrawn due to jurisdictional defects. 

• The Calcutta High Court held this in the case of Sri Arun Kumar Jindal & Anr v. Smt. Rajni Poddar & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Sri Arun Kumar Jindal & Anr v. Smt. Rajni Poddar & Ors. (2025) Case?   

• Radha Krishan Poddar (predecessor of the decree holders) initiated an execution proceeding (No. 9 of 2002) to execute an arbitral award dated December 22, 2001. 
• Radha Krishan Poddar passed away on August 24, 2014, and the opposite parties (legal heirs) were substituted in the case on October 30, 2014. 
• In 2018, the opposite parties realized that the Civil Judge had no jurisdiction over the matter and consequently withdrew the proceeding. 
• They filed a fresh execution case (No. 535 of 2018) before the District Judge, Alipore, which was subsequently transferred to the Additional District Judge. 
• During the pendency of this execution proceeding, the petitioners (award debtors) filed an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) questioning the execution of the decree. 
• The Executing Court dismissed this application, leading to the present revision application.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The petitioners challenged the execution on three grounds:  
  • The arbitral award had lost enforceability due to delay. 
  • Improper appointment of the arbitrator. 
  • Absence of an arbitration agreement. 
• The Court held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1963 (LA) protects the period of limitation when proceedings are withdrawn due to jurisdictional defects. 
• The Court determined that challenging the appointment of an arbitrator during execution proceedings is not permissible, as such challenges must be made during arbitration proceedings under Sections 12-16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 
• The Court affirmed that questions regarding the existence of an arbitration agreement must be raised either before the arbitral tribunal or in court proceedings at an early stage, not during execution. 
• The Court found that the withdrawal of the earlier execution case was properly done with a specific prayer to file before the appropriate forum due to jurisdictional issues. 
• The Court determined that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is a complete code, and provisions of Section 47 of CPC have limited application in execution proceedings under this Act. 
• The Court dismissed the revision application, finding no grounds to interfere with the order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

What is Section 14 of LA?

• When computing the limitation period for a suit, the time during which the plaintiff was diligently pursuing another civil proceeding against the same defendant for the same matter shall be excluded if that proceeding was filed in good faith in a court that lacked jurisdiction. 
• Similarly, for applications, the time spent pursuing another civil proceeding against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded if that proceeding was filed in good faith in a court without jurisdiction. 
• This provision also applies to fresh suits filed with court permission when the original suit failed due to jurisdictional defects. 
• When calculating the excluded time period, both the day on which the original proceeding began and the day it ended are counted. 
• A plaintiff or applicant who is resisting an appeal is considered to be prosecuting a proceeding for the purposes of this section. 
• Misjoinder of parties or causes of action is treated as equivalent to a jurisdictional defect under this provision. 
• This section essentially protects litigants who have filed cases in good faith in the wrong court by allowing them to exclude that time when calculating the limitation period for filing in the correct court.