IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2479 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: April 18, 2011. M/s Vijay Shree Textiles. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.B.Bagga, Advocate for the respondent. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure against impugned order dated 08.10.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat vide which appeal filed by the present petitioner-plaintiff against order dated 09.05.2009 vide which application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the suit was dismissed, was dismissed. CR No.2479 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned orders passed by the courts below. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, petitioner-plaintiff had obtained a policy from defendant which was valid from 02.08.1995 to 31.08.1997 for the maximum liability of `30,00,000/-. It had paid premium of `7,500/- on 02.08.1995. Dispute arose between the parties and demand of `1,58,682/- was raised by petitioner- plaintiff from defendant. On refusal by the defendant of demand of the same, petitioner filed a consumer complaint before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana on 19.09.1999. However, the same was dismissed by the State Commission vide order dated 02.08.2007. Aggrieved against the said order, petitioner-plaintiff filed appeal before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which was also dismissed on 11.02.2008. Thereafter, a review petition was also filed by the petitioner before the National Commission and however, the same also dismissed. Thereafter, petitioner-plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of the said amount for the same cause of action and however, the said suit was not filed within limitation and hence, an application was filed for condonation of delay in filing the suit on the ground that he was bonafidely pursuing the litigation before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and that orders were not passed on merit. The application was contested by respondent-defendant. The same was dismissed by learned trial Court vide order dated 09.05.2009 by observing as under:- 2 CR No.2479 of 2010 “7. After reading the judgment of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana it becomes abundantly clear that Hon’ble Commission dismissed the complaint on merits after hearing both the parties. The commission has also observed that the claim is time barred. 8. In Section 14 of Limitation Act it has been clearly mentioned that time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a 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. This is not the case of the applicant/ plaintiff that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has dismissed his complaint on the ground of defect of jurisdiction. Rather the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the complaint on merits and not on the grounds of defect of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature. So, in my considered opinion the time spent by applicant/plaintiff in pursuing the remedy in State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission cannot be excluded. So, the application under section 14 of the Limitation Act stands dismissed. Resultantly, the suit of the plaintiff is also dismissed as time barred.” Appeal filed by the petitioner-plaintiff against the said order was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat while observing as under:- 3 CR No.2479 of 2010 “14. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent- defendant has placed reliance on 2008 (2) RCR(Civil) 897 titled as M/s Consolidated Engg. Enterprises vs. Principal Secy. Irrigation Deptt. and others in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down six conditions before applicability of Section 14 of Limitation Act which are enumerated as under:- 1. Both the prior and subsequent proceedings are civil proceedings prosecuted by the same party. 2. The prior proceeding had been prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith. 3. The failure of the prior proceeding was due to defect of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature. 4. The earlier proceeding and the later proceeding must relate to the same matter in issue. 5. Both the proceedings are in a court. 6. The above conditions must co-exist. Out of these six conditions, third condition is that the failure of the prior proceedings was due to defect of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature. It has already been discussed in the foregoing paragraphs that the orders passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi were not made on account of defect of jurisdiction. Firstly, the complaint was dismissed on merits and secondly the appeal was also dismissed on merits and thirdly review petition was also dismissed on merits. At no point of time, the Consumer Forum had dismissed the complaint or the Commission had dismissed the appeal as it was not having any jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The case of the appellant-plaintiff is not at all covered under the provisions of Section 14 of Limitation Act for exclusion of time spent before the Consumer Fora. After the dismissal/rejection of the claim of the plaintiff vide letter dated 26.11.96 by the defendant, suit for recovery has been filed in the year 2008. The learned trial court has rightly observed that the 4 CR No.2479 of 2010 time spent by the plaintiff in litigating before the Consumer Fora is not liable to be excluded at the time of calculating the period of limitation for filing the suit for recovery. Hence, the order dated 9.5.09 passed by the learned trial court on application under Section 14 of Limitation Act is ordered to be upheld. 15. In the same order passed by the learned trial court, application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been decided which was filed by the defendant. In the said application the defendant had prayed for rejection of the plaint. Since the period of limitation was not ordered to be condoned and Section 14 of Limitation Act was not made applicable for exclusion of time spent before Consumer Fora, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was made redundant. There is no illegality in the said order. The order passed by the learned trial court to that extent is also upheld.” Only point argued by learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that, in another similar matter application filed by petitioner- plaintiff under Section 14 of the Limitation Act was allowed by another trial Court. However, it has been stated by learned counsel for the respondent that the said order was challenged by respondent by way of appeal before learned Additional District Judge, Panipat and the said appeal was allowed and the order passed by the trial court was set aside. Sufficient reasons have been given by both the courts below dismissing the application of the petitioner-plaintiff filed under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Persual of orders of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission shows that the same were passed on merit and not on account of any defect of 5 CR No.2479 of 2010 jurisdiction or any other cause of like nature. Hence, when petitioner- plaintiff already lost the case before the court of competent jurisdiction i.e. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on merit, he is having no right to invoke the jurisdiction of civil court again for same cause of action by filing the present suit for recovery and application for exclusion of the time spent before the Consumer Fora. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by the courts below by passing the impugned orders, warranting interference by this Court. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) April 18, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 6