Manipur High Court
Kumari Amom Mema Devi vs Kumari Thokchom Manglembi Devi on 6 March, 2025
Digitally signed by
JOHN JOHN TELEN KOM
TELEN KOM Date: 2025.03.12
14:40:28 +05'30' Items No. 10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MFA No.1 of 2023
Kumari Amom Mema Devi, aged about 58 years, D/o (late) A.
Borajaoba Singh of Taobunghok Awang Leikai, P.O. Langjing, P.S.
Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-7951003.
Appellant
Vs.
Kumari Thokchom Manglembi Devi, aged about 58 years, D/o (Late)
Th. Gobrodhon Singh of Sagolband Nepra Major, PO & PS Imphal,
Imphal West District, Manipur-795001 & Anr.
Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. D. KRISHNAKUMAR
ORDER
(Oral)
06.03.2025
[1] Mr. K. Modhusudon, learned counsel, appears for the appellant
and Mr. Dayali Elangbam, learned counsel, appears for the respondents.
[2] This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and
decree dated 21.12.2019 passed by the learned Court of Civil Judge Sr.
Division, Imphal West in original (Money) suit No. 105 of 2017.
[3] The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit in original (Money) suit No.
105 of 2017 on the file of Civil Judge Senior Division, Imphal West for recovery
of money to a sum of Rs.26,07500/-(Rupees twenty six lakhs seven thousand
five hundred). The issues were being framed by the learned Single Judge
MFA NO.1 OF 2023 1
(Imphal) in the aforesaid suit. The preliminary issue also framed whether the
suit is barred by limitation or not. The said preliminary issue was taken into
consideration on the objection made by the respondents herein.
[4] According to the appellant that the appellant has paid a sum of
Rs.2,50,000/-(Two lakhs fifty thousand) to the respondents herein on
01.08.2012 and subsequently, the respondents again requesting the appellant
to give another 4,00,000/-(Four lakhs) as loan amount to the respondent
herein. The respondents have borrowed the aforesaid amount of Rs.
4,00,000/-(Four lakhs) on 12.08.2012 with an interest at the rate of 5% per
month on the Principal amount. The said amount has to be paid on or before
12.01.2013. According to the appellant that the respondents have made an
objection that the said suit is barred by Limitation under Section 14 of the
Limitation Act. The trial court has considered the said objection of the
respodent that the appellant has filed a complaint before the Legal Aid Clinic
at Cheirap Complex in the year 2014 to recover the aforesaid debt amount.
The respondents herein have paid a sum of Rs.50,000/-(fifty thousand) on
09.09.2014 and Rs.40,000/-(Forty Thousand) on 18.11.2014 at the Legal Aid
Clinic based on the appellant’s claim made before the Legal Aid Clinic at
Cheirap Court, and was not accepted and dismissed the suit.
[5] The learned counsel appeared for the appellant draws attention
of this Court by relying upon section 19 of the Limitation Act which clearly
states that when the part amount has been paid by the respondents herein for
settling the aforesaid outstanding due amount of Rs. 6,50,000/-(Six Lakhs &
MFA NO.1 OF 2023 2
fifty thousand) as Principal amount and therefore, the limitation period is
accrued from the date of the said amount has been paid to the appellant herein
and thus, according to him, in view of the aforesaid section 19 of the Act, the
said suit is within the prescribed period of 3(three) years’ time but the trial
court has considered under Section 14 of the Limitation Act which says that
exclusion of the limitation period when any suit is filed before the wrong forum
which is without having any jurisdiction and thus, the said provision of the Act
will not apply to the facts of the case on hand and therefore, the decision of
the trial court is liable to be set aside.
[6] The learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently
argued before this Court that the said provision of section 14 of the Limitation
Act will squarely apply to the fact that the appellant has sought her remedy
before the Legal Aid Centre seeking for payment of the said amount and
therefore, she has wrongly approached before the Legal Aid Centre and
hence, the said suit is liable to be dismissed as held by the trial court.
[7] Heard the parties concerned and perused the materials on
record.
[8] The point for consideration in the appeal is whether the said suit
is barred by the limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act?
[9] The appellant would rely upon the provision of section 14 of the
Act which has been described as follows:-
“14. Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without
jurisdiction.
MFA NO.1 OF 2023 3
(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 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.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 2 of Order XXIII of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), the provisions of sub-section
(1) shall apply in relation to a fresh suit instituted on permission granted
by the court under rule 1 of the Order where such permission is granted
on the ground that the first suit must fail by reason of a defect in the
jurisdiction of the court or other cause of a like nature.”
[10] According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that
he is not pressing with the above said provision under Section 14 of the
Limitation Act for entertaining the suit within limitation period. The respondents
herein had paid Rs.50,000/-(fifty thousand) and Rs. 40,000/-(forty thousand)
within the limitation period of 3(three) years and therefore, Section 19 of the
Limitation Act would squarely applicable to the facts on hand, and hence the
said suit is filed within the period of limitation.
[11] This Court has carefully considered section 19 of the said
provision of the Limitation Act and the trial court has also not gone into the
MFA NO.1 OF 2023 4
aforesaid provision under Section 19 of the Limitation Act. The trial court has
considered only section 14 of the Limitation Act which the appellant has no
dispute that the said section 14 will not apply to the facts of this case.
According to the appellant that on the facts of this case, section 19 of the
Limitation Act will be the relevant provision to apply as the said suit is filed
within the period of limitation. The said section 19 of the Act was not properly
examined by the trial court and therefore, this Court is of the view that the
learned counsel for the respondents also states that the section 19 of the Act
was not discussed and no such finding was rendered, but only under Section
14 of the Limitation Act, the said decision was taken and dismissed the suit.
[12] The submissions of the appellant that under section 19 of the
Limitation Act has not been considered by the court below, to entertain the
suit that the same is not hit by law of limitation in proper prospective. In these
circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to set aside the judgment and
decree passed by the learned trial Court and remitted back to the Court below
to decide the issues framed by the trial court under Section 19 of the Limitation
Act. Since the aforesaid suit is filed by the appellant in the year 2017,
therefore, this Court directed the trial court to dispose the said suit or any
preliminary issue at the earliest within 6(six) months from the date of receipt
of this order.
[13] In view of the above facts and circumstances, impugned order
passed in Original (Money) Suit No.105 of 2017 dated 21.12.2019 is set aside
and consequently MFA is allowed.
MFA NO.1 OF 2023 5
[14] It is made it clear that it is open for the trial court to take the
preliminary issue to decide whether the said suit is barred under Section 19 of
the Limitation Act.
[15] Registry is directed to send the original records if it is already
received by the High Court within a period of three weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
CHIEF JUSTICE
John Kom
MFA NO.1 OF 2023 6