1 cra144.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Revision Application No. 144 of 2011 Mrs. Anishabanu Jamilabai Sayed ... Petitioner v/s. Kalawatidevi d/o Devidayal Singh & anr. ... Respondents Mr. V.E. Moman for the petitioner. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- APRIL 08, 2011. P.C. The applicant challenges the order dated 21st December, 2010 vide which the preliminary objection of the present petitioner regarding limitation has been rejected by the learned trial Court. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has grossly erred in giving benefit of provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to the respondent no. 1. He submits that for getting the benefit a party has to satisfy the Court that her act of approaching the 2 cra144.11.sxw erroneous person is not deliberate but a bonafide one. He submits that act of the respondent-plaintiff was not bonafide one and as such she was not entitled to benefit under Section 14. 3. Whether the act of respondent- plaintiff is a bonafide or not is a matter which has to be decided on the basis of evidence that would be led before the learned trial Court. The petitioner can very well raise the ground and if such a ground is raised, the learned trial Court would be required to decide it on the basis of evidence led before it. 4. The petition is, therefore, disposed of with aforesaid observations. (B.R. GAVAI, J)