THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1332 of 2009 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. When this matter came up earlier on 24.03.2000, none appeared for the respondent. Even today also, none appeared for the respondent. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners herein are the defendants, who filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking inter alia to assail the correctness of the order, dated 11.08.2008, passed by the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar in allowing I.A.No.2858 of 2007 filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Section 14 of the Limitation Act (for short ‘the Act’) seeking to exclude the time taken during pendency of the proceedings in I.P.No.27 of 2002 prior to the filing of C.F.No.7194 of 2007 for the purpose of reckoning the limitation. C.F. No.7194 of 2007 is laid for recovery of the amount based on the promissory note, dated 15.02.2000. The case of the respondent is that earlier, the petitioners filed I.P.No.27 of 2002 and the same was dismissed on 13.06.2006. Therefore, the said period is liable to be excluded. Hence, I.A.No.2858 of 2007 is filed under Section 14 of the Act stating that he was prosecuting the case bona fide. The Court below accepting the said version, allowed the application. Hence, this revision. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that any period, which is taken for the insolvency proceedings, would not in any way come to the rescue of the respondent nor would aid to avail the benefit as provided for under Section 14 of the Act. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Kotha Dhanalakshmi Vs. Bandi Sreenivasulu[1], wherein the learned Single Judge has held that mere pendency of the proceedings under the Insolvency Act would not save the limitation. On consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the material available on record, it is seen that even the affidavit filed in support of the present application seeking to exclude the period for which the respondent was bona fide pursuing the proceedings under the Insolvency Act, does not give any reference to the benefit of the exemption under Section 14 of the Act, which is contemplated or provided for under any provision of law. The entire affidavit is totally bereft of detailed reasons and nothing is mentioned except that the insolvency petition has been filed and the same was dismissed. For convenience sake, para 2 of the affidavit reads as under: “That I have filed the present suit, after dismissal of I.P.No.27 of 2002 file by defendant in the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar and I.P.No.27 of 2002 was disposed of on 13.06.2006 and obtaining all the CC of I.P.No.27 of 2002. Hence, the period 2002 to 13.06.2006 may kindly be excluded under Article 14 of Limitation Act.” From the above, it is quite apparent that the respondent has not, in any way, tried to lay a claim for exemption or exclusion under law in respect of the I.P. proceedings nor there is any reference to any of the provisions either submitted by the respondent or even in the orders passed by the Court below, to avail such exclusion. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners and following the judgment referred to above, the present application is not maintainable. Hence, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J Dt: 21.01.2011. kdl [1] 2009(5) ALD 332