1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No. 428 of 2006 MOHAN LAL V/S RAMRAKH Mr. NK SHARMA, for the appellant / petitioner Date of Order : 10.8.2007 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the appellant, and perused the impugned orders. It is contended that the limitation was required to be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act in view of the fact that previous revenue litigation was pending, and that was decided in 1997 only, and immediately thereafter the present suit has been filed. To appreciate this argument I may gainfully reproduce the language of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which reads as under:- “14. Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in Court without jurisdiction:-(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 2 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....” A look at the above provision shows that the very first requirement of that section is that plaintiff should be prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceedings against the defendant, in order to entitle the plaintiff to claim exclusion of that time if the other conditions of section are fulfilled. In the present case, admittedly the revenue litigation was not initiated by the present appellant but therein the appellant was defendant, and that litigation was also not a litigation for cancellation of sale deed. The other submission made is that the property has been purchased by the minors, while minors could not enter into any contract, and therefore, the sale is void. In my view, this argument also cannot be accepted 3 as there is no prohibition against minors purchasing the property, prohibition could be, and is against minors attracting or incurring any liability, and not acquiring anything. No other point was argued. Thus, I do not find any substantial question of law to be involved in the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed summarily. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /sushil/