SHARMA, J. - (1.) CIVIL suit instituted by the plaintiff appellant seeking partition and possession of the property in question was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge Alwar on November 11, 1974. Against this decree and judgment that the present action for filing the appeal has been resorted to by the plaintiff. The parties shall be referred hereinafter in the same manner as they were arrayed in the suit.
(2.) THE plaintiff is the nephew of the defendant and Buddhi Lal was their common ancestor. In the first inning of the litigation the plaintiff had filed two suits in 1942, one for recovery of the sum which remained outstanding against the defendant and another for possession of the immovable properties under the terms of the arbitration award dated May 12, 1941. THE District Judge Alwar vide its judgment and decree dated May 25, 1955 decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 5200/-but dismissed the second suit. THE regular first appeal preferred by the plaintiff dismissed by the High Court on December 12, 1960. THE Division Bench also dismissed the special appeal of the plaintiff on April 27, 1965. THEreafter in the second inning of the litigation the plaintiff instituted the present suit claiming his right on the basis of his title. THE plaintiff also claimed the benefit of section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act on the ground that he had been prosecuting his claim with all sincerity and reasonableness in the court of District Judge and the High Court from 1942 to 1965. THE defendant submitted written statement and as many as 12 issues were framed by the trial court which have been incorporated in the impugned judgment. Learned trial court decided issues No. 5 and 8 against the plaintiff which led to the dismissal of the suit. It was held that decision of the District Judge Alwar in the original suit and the decision of the High Court in appeal operated as res judicata against the plaintiff and the plaintiff was not entitled to bring a fresh suit on the basis of his title. Issues No. 1,2,3,4,6,7,9,10 and 11 were however decided in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant filed an application before this court praying that he may be permitted to argue all those points which have been decided against him by the trial court. This court vide order dated July 21, 1975 allowed the application observing that the defendant has a right to do so and he can argue all those points. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record as well as the written arguments placed before me on behalf of the plaintiff. The decision of issue No. 7 that relates to applicability of section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act to the suit, goes into the root of the matter therefore I shall discuss this issue first.
(3.) THE learned trial court decided issue No. 7 in favour of the plaintiff with the following observations: " THE court has to decide whether the plaintiff has satisfied all these requirements. THE earlier suit was based on the basis of award. It was most reasonable on the part of the plaintiff to file the suit on the basis of the award. When he filed the suit he acted as a reasonable man of ordinary prudence. It cannot be said that the suit which was pending in the court of District Judge was not prosecuted by him with due care and attention. THE suit was dismissed on the ground that the award on which it was based was unregistered and thus inadmissible in evidence. One cannot doubt the bonafides of the plaintiff so far as the prosecution of the suit is concerned. THE question arises whether the dismissal of the suit on the ground of the award being unregistered is to be covered by the definition of the words "other cause of like nature". THE consensus of judicial opinion is to the effect that these words "other cause of like nature" must be liberally interpreted. When I put this liberal interpretation upon these words I come to the conclusion that the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed as a result of something which could be covered by the definition of the words "other cause of like nature. " It is necessary at this juncture to take stock of the provisions contained in section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act. It provides thus: " 14. Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in Court without jurisdiction. (1) In computing the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in court of first instance or in a court of appeal, against the defendant, shall be excluded, where the proceeding is founded upon the same cause of action and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction, or other cause of like nature, is unable to entertain it. (2) In computing the period of limitation prescribed 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 in a court of appeal 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. " It is not in dispute that the plaintiff had filed a suit on the basis of the award on July 25, 1942 in the court of District Judge Alwar. The suit was decided on May 26, 1955. The plaintiff went in appeal which came to an end on December 12, 1950. The plaintiff again went in special appeal which was dismissed in default on April 27, 1965. The plaintiff in the instant case has prayed for the exclusion of the period which he spent in prosecution of the suit and the two appeals from July 25, 1942 to April 27, 1965. Before the plaintiff can be held entitled to the benefits of section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the Act), he has to satisfy the three things. First, that he has been prosecuting the civil suit with due care and attention. Second, the proceedings were not lacking in good faith. Third, that the proceedings proved infructuous on the ground of jurisdiction or some other cause of like nature. ;