VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order dated 12.6.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, vide which the application, moved by the plaintiff-applicant under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in prosecuting the case before the Consumer Commission, was allowed.
(2.) M /s. Pfizer Limited alongwith the Oriental Insurance Company filed a complaint in the consumer Court in 1997 i.e. within a period of limitation. However, the said complaint was disposed of by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad, vide order dated 18th of October, 2000 holding therein that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and it was open to the parties to approach the Civil Court. The said application was contested on the ground that the time and delay for filing the suit could not be condoned. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that period spent by the respondent herein before the Consumer Court was liable to be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. It further held that if the period of trial before the Consumer Commission is excluded, the suit was within limitation and accordingly the application was allowed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner challenged the said order firstly, on the ground that Section 15 of the Limitation Act was not applicable and for the said purpose reference was made to Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act which reads as under :- "In computing the period for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceedings, whether in a Court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceedings 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." ;