Hero photograph: Tingey Injury Law Firm / Unsplash.
At a Glance
What Is Section 14 of the Limitation Act?
Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 protects a litigant who has, in good faith and with due diligence, spent time prosecuting a civil proceeding before a court that ultimately could not entertain it because of a defect of jurisdiction or another cause of a like nature.
The provision does not forgive inactivity. It recognises that a diligent litigant should not lose a substantive remedy merely because time was consumed in an abortive proceeding before the wrong forum, provided the statutory conditions are genuinely satisfied.
Its operation is computational: the qualifying period is excluded while calculating limitation for the subsequent proceeding.
Section 14 vs Section 5: Exclusion Is Not Condonation
| Section 5 | Section 14 |
|---|---|
| Condones delay in an appeal or application on “sufficient cause”. | Excludes qualifying time already spent in a prior proceeding. |
| Discretionary. | Operates where statutory conditions are established. |
| Does not apply to suits. | Expressly applies to suits and applications, subject to different tests. |
| Looks at why filing was late. | Looks at bona fide prosecution before a forum unable to entertain the case. |
| Can be excluded by special-law outer limits. | May still remain applicable even where Section 5 is excluded, depending on the special statute. |
For the general condonation framework, see Section 5 Limitation Act: Condonation of Delay.
Statutory Structure: Section 14(1), 14(2) and 14(3)
Section 14 contains distinct routes depending on the subsequent proceeding.
- Section 14(1): applies when limitation is being computed for a suit.
- Section 14(2): applies when limitation is being computed for an application.
- Section 14(3): preserves the benefit in a fresh suit filed after permission under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC where the first suit had to fail because of jurisdictional defect or another cause of like nature, notwithstanding Order XXIII Rule 2.
The distinction between sub-sections (1) and (2) is not cosmetic. The Supreme Court has expressly held that the phrase “same matter in issue” in Section 14(1) is broader than the requirement of “same relief” in Section 14(2).
Conditions for Section 14(1): Subsequent Suit
For exclusion under Section 14(1), the following conditions ordinarily need to coexist:
- the subsequent proceeding is a suit;
- the earlier and later proceedings are civil proceedings;
- they are prosecuted by the same party against the same defendant or substantially the same opposing party;
- the earlier proceeding relates to the same matter in issue;
- the earlier proceeding failed because of defect of jurisdiction or another cause of like nature;
- the earlier proceeding was prosecuted in good faith and with due diligence; and
- the proceedings are before a court, subject to the jurisprudence concerning quasi-judicial forums discussed below.
Conditions for Section 14(2): Subsequent Application
Section 14(2) applies to applications and is materially stricter in one respect. The earlier and later proceedings must be for the same relief, not merely concern the same controversy.
The usual conditions are:
- both proceedings are civil in nature;
- they are between the same parties;
- the earlier and later proceeding seek the same relief;
- the earlier proceeding failed for defect of jurisdiction or a cause of like nature;
- the earlier proceeding was pursued in good faith and with due diligence; and
- the proceedings were before a court or fall within a recognised application of the underlying Section 14 principle.
Supreme Court 2024: HPCL Bio-Fuels v. Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad
M/s HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd. v. M/s Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad, 2024 INSC 851, is one of the clearest recent Supreme Court explanations of Section 14(1) and Section 14(2).
The respondent had pursued insolvency proceedings and later sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Court held that a Section 11(6) petition is an application, so Section 14(2)—not Section 14(1)—governed the enquiry.
The Court then drew the critical distinction:
- Section 14(1) looks for the same matter in issue between the earlier and later proceedings.
- Section 14(2) requires the proceedings to seek the same relief.
IBC proceedings seeking commencement of CIRP and a Section 11(6) petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator were not proceedings for the same relief. The Section 14(2) requirement therefore failed.
The case is a strong warning against treating Section 14 as a broad equitable licence whenever two proceedings arise from the same underlying contract.
Read: HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd. v. Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad
Supreme Court 2025: My Preferred Transformation v. Faridabad Implements
In My Preferred Transformation & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd., 2025 INSC 56, the Supreme Court revisited limitation in the context of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The judgment reiterates an important doctrinal point: Section 5 and Section 14 are fundamentally different. Section 5 allows discretionary condonation and thereby extends time. Section 14 excludes a qualifying period from computation once its statutory requirements are met.
The Court reaffirmed the earlier line of authority holding that Section 14 can apply in Section 34 arbitration proceedings even though Section 5 is excluded by the strict language of Section 34(3). That distinction is critical in arbitration practice: the statutory outer cap does not automatically mean that every computation provision of the Limitation Act is unavailable.
Section 14 in Arbitration: Why It Matters
Arbitration limitation frequently produces confusion because Section 34(3) is strict and Section 5 is unavailable beyond the statutory grace period. Yet Supreme Court authority has consistently distinguished condonation from exclusion.
Where a Section 34 challenge was bona fide pursued before a court lacking territorial or other jurisdiction, Section 14 may exclude that period if the requirements of good faith, due diligence and identity of relief are met.
However, merely filing something in another forum does not preserve limitation. A defective, strategic or unrelated proceeding will not qualify.
2025 Supreme Court: Liberty to File Fresh Suit Does Not Automatically Save Limitation
In Smt. Arifa & Ors. v. Abhiman Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors., 2025 INSC 875, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that liberty granted by a High Court to file a comprehensive fresh suit automatically revived limitation.
The earlier proceeding had not failed because it was before the wrong forum; rather, the suit had been improperly framed and the necessary substantive reliefs had not been claimed in time. The Court agreed that Section 14 could not be used merely because the litigant had later obtained liberty to institute a fresh suit.
The decision is important for Order XXIII practice: permission to withdraw and file afresh does not itself create a fresh limitation period. The benefit of Section 14 must still independently satisfy the statute, including the requirement that the earlier proceeding failed because of jurisdictional defect or another cause of like nature.
2026 Delhi High Court: Naveen Gupta v. Satish Jangra
In Naveen Gupta v. Satish Jangra, 2026 DHC 5083, decided on 5 June 2026, the Delhi High Court revisited the interaction between withdrawal of a defective earlier suit, Section 14 and the requirements of due diligence and good faith.
The Court held that a technical defect in the earlier proceeding did not, on the facts, establish bad faith or lack of due diligence. It restored the subsequent suit after finding that the courts below had applied Section 14 too narrowly.
The judgment is especially relevant to Delhi civil practice because it reiterates that “good faith” under Section 2(h) of the Limitation Act means action taken with due care and attention, and that due diligence cannot be measured by a rigid universal formula.
Read: Naveen Gupta v. Satish Jangra
What Does “Good Faith” Mean Under the Limitation Act?
Section 2(h) of the Limitation Act gives “good faith” a stricter meaning than mere honesty. Nothing is deemed to be done in good faith if it is not done with due care and attention.
That means a litigant may be subjectively honest yet still fail the statutory test if the choice of forum or manner of prosecution was careless.
Courts may consider:
- whether legal advice was taken;
- whether jurisdiction was genuinely arguable;
- whether objections were promptly addressed;
- whether the litigant persisted in an obviously incompetent forum after the defect became clear;
- whether the proceeding was withdrawn promptly when the defect was identified; and
- whether the litigation history suggests a deliberate attempt to gain time.
What Is “Due Diligence”?
Due diligence is the degree of prudence, care and activity reasonably expected from a litigant in the circumstances. It does not demand perfection, but it does exclude negligence, unexplained inaction and procedural indifference.
A litigant may still be diligent where the wrong forum itself kept the matter pending while resolving jurisdiction. Delay attributable to the court in determining that it lacks jurisdiction should not ordinarily be treated as lack of diligence by the party.
Conversely, repeated defaults, non-appearance, failure to cure defects, strategic adjournments or long unexplained gaps can defeat Section 14.
A Mistake of Forum Can Still Be Bona Fide
Choosing the wrong forum does not automatically establish lack of good faith. Section 14 exists precisely because genuine jurisdictional mistakes occur.
The relevant question is whether the error was made despite due care and whether the litigant prosecuted the proceeding honestly and diligently once filed.
A sophisticated litigant or government body may be expected to provide a stronger explanation where the jurisdictional position was obvious from the statute or contract.
What Is a “Defect of Jurisdiction”?
Typical jurisdictional defects can include:
- territorial jurisdiction;
- pecuniary jurisdiction;
- subject-matter jurisdiction;
- exclusive jurisdiction vested in another court;
- a statutory forum requirement;
- filing before the wrong appellate authority; or
- a proceeding that the chosen court is legally incapable of entertaining.
Section 14 is directed to inability of the earlier court to entertain the matter. It is not ordinarily attracted merely because the plaintiff’s pleading was weak, evidence was insufficient or the claim failed on merits.
What Is “Other Cause of a Like Nature”?
The phrase is interpreted broadly but not without limits. The cause must be analogous to a jurisdictional impediment—something that prevents the court from entertaining the case rather than something that merely makes the claim unsuccessful on its merits.
The statutory Explanation expressly provides that misjoinder of parties or causes of action is deemed to be a cause of like nature with defect of jurisdiction.
Other procedural defects may qualify where they create an inability to entertain the proceeding of a jurisdiction-like character. Each case depends on the nature of the defect, not merely the label attached to it.
Same Matter in Issue: Section 14(1)
For a later suit, the earlier and subsequent proceedings must concern the same matter in issue. This does not necessarily mean identical prayers word-for-word. The enquiry is whether the substantive controversy directly and substantially in issue is the same.
HPCL Bio-Fuels confirms that this phrase is broader than the “same relief” requirement applicable to applications.
A new suit based on a fundamentally different cause of action, different transaction or later-accrued right cannot ordinarily borrow the earlier proceeding’s time merely because the parties are the same.
Same Relief: Section 14(2)
For a later application, Section 14(2) requires the same relief. This can be decisive in arbitration, insolvency, company and statutory proceedings.
Two proceedings arising from the same contract can still seek legally different reliefs. An insolvency application seeking initiation of CIRP is not the same relief as an arbitration petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator. Likewise, a writ asking for public-law review may not necessarily be the same relief as a statutory appeal or civil application.
Section 14 and Writ Proceedings
Litigants frequently approach a High Court under Article 226 before pursuing a statutory remedy. Whether time spent in the writ can later be excluded depends on the statutory conditions and the nature of the later proceeding.
The fact that a writ was filed first does not automatically establish good faith, same relief or jurisdictional failure. If the writ was withdrawn because an efficacious statutory remedy existed, the court must still examine whether Section 14 or its underlying principle legitimately applies.
Counsel should preserve the exact withdrawal order, especially any liberty or observation concerning limitation, while recognising that a court’s general liberty cannot override the Limitation Act.
Section 14 and Consumer Proceedings
Where a litigant bona fide approaches a consumer forum and the dispute is later held not maintainable there, time may in an appropriate case be excluded when a civil action is subsequently filed.
The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence has repeatedly treated Section 14 as a provision intended to prevent a bona fide litigant from losing its remedy solely because it selected the wrong forum. The requirements of identity of dispute, due diligence and good faith remain essential.
Section 14 and Insolvency Proceedings
Insolvency proceedings are not a substitute for a civil recovery suit or arbitration claim. HPCL Bio-Fuels is important because it prevents litigants from assuming that time spent under the IBC can automatically be excluded for every later contractual remedy.
Where the subsequent proceeding is an application, the “same relief” requirement can defeat Section 14 even if the underlying debt or contract is the same.
Proceedings Before Tribunals and Quasi-Judicial Bodies
Section 14, textually, speaks of proceedings in a court. In M.P. Steel Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise, the Supreme Court held that the Limitation Act does not mechanically apply to every quasi-judicial tribunal as though each were a civil court.
However, the Court also recognised that the principles underlying Section 14, which advance justice, may in an appropriate statutory setting be applied even where Section 14 does not operate stricto sensu.
The correct analysis therefore depends on the forum, governing statute, limitation scheme and whether the special law excludes such equitable computation.
Withdrawal With Liberty Under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC
Withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh suit is frequently misunderstood as a limitation reset. It is not.
Order XXIII Rule 2 states that limitation in a fresh suit is computed as if the first suit had not been instituted. Section 14(3) creates a specific saving where withdrawal permission was granted because the first suit had to fail by reason of defect of jurisdiction or another cause of like nature.
Therefore:
- mere liberty to file afresh does not automatically save limitation;
- the reason for withdrawal matters;
- Section 14 conditions remain relevant; and
- the fresh suit should be filed promptly after termination of the earlier proceeding.
Order VII Rule 11 and Section 14
A plaint may appear time-barred on its face while the plaintiff invokes Section 14 to exclude an earlier period. Whether rejection under Order VII Rule 11 is appropriate depends on whether the necessary Section 14 facts emerge from the plaint and documents or involve disputed questions requiring evidence.
Naveen Gupta illustrates why courts should be cautious about converting a limitation objection into a mini-trial at the threshold where good faith and due diligence depend on contested facts.
How Is the Excluded Period Calculated?
The statutory Explanation provides that both the day on which the former proceeding was instituted and the day on which it ended are counted in the period to be excluded.
After identifying the earlier proceeding’s start and end dates, counsel should:
- compute the ordinary limitation period;
- identify the qualifying Section 14 interval;
- exclude that interval from computation;
- apply any separate exclusion under Sections 12, 15 or other provisions where available; and
- state the final limitation date transparently in the pleading.
A Plaintiff Resisting an Appeal Is Also “Prosecuting” a Proceeding
The Explanation to Section 14 clarifies that a plaintiff or applicant resisting an appeal is deemed to be prosecuting a proceeding.
This matters where the plaintiff succeeded in the wrong forum and was required to defend that success through appellate stages before the jurisdictional defect was finally recognised.
Misjoinder Is Deemed a Cause of Like Nature
The Explanation further provides that misjoinder of parties or causes of action is deemed to be a cause of like nature with defect of jurisdiction.
This statutory deeming rule is important because it prevents overly narrow arguments that only territorial, pecuniary or subject-matter jurisdiction defects can ever attract Section 14.
What Section 14 Does Not Protect
Section 14 ordinarily does not rescue:
- a claim that failed on merits;
- a suit that was simply badly drafted or omitted necessary substantive relief, unless the defect falls within Section 14(3) or a recognised like cause;
- a strategic forum choice made to delay proceedings;
- proceedings pursued after the litigant knew the forum was plainly incompetent;
- a different later claim seeking unrelated relief;
- negligent or abandoned litigation;
- a fresh cause of action that arose independently after the earlier proceeding; or
- an application where the earlier proceeding did not seek the same relief.
How to Plead Section 14 Properly
- Identify the ordinary limitation period. State the relevant Article or special statutory provision.
- State the limitation trigger. Specify the date on which the right to sue or apply accrued.
- Identify the earlier proceeding. Give case number, forum and date of institution.
- Explain why that forum could not entertain the case. Quote the jurisdictional or like defect.
- Plead good faith. State why the forum choice was bona fide.
- Plead due diligence. Provide the chronology showing active prosecution.
- Establish identity. For a suit, explain the same matter in issue; for an application, explain the same relief.
- Give the termination date. Attach the return, dismissal, withdrawal or jurisdiction order.
- Calculate the excluded period. Show the arithmetic expressly.
- Explain prompt refiling. If there was a gap after termination, address it separately.
- Address special-law exclusion. If a special statute governs, explain why Section 14 remains applicable.
Suggested Section 14 Chronology
| Date | Event | Section 14 relevance |
|---|---|---|
| Accrual date | Cause of action / statutory trigger | Ordinary limitation begins |
| Earlier filing date | Proceeding instituted in first forum | Start of claimed exclusion |
| Jurisdiction objection | Objection raised / noticed | Good-faith and diligence evidence |
| Intervening prosecution | Hearings, appeals, compliance | Shows active due diligence |
| Termination date | Return / dismissal / withdrawal for jurisdiction-like defect | End of claimed exclusion |
| Fresh filing date | Suit / application filed in proper forum | Demonstrates promptness |
How to Oppose a Section 14 Claim
A respondent should test each statutory ingredient rather than merely argue that limitation expired.
Common objections include:
- the earlier case was not before a wrong forum;
- the earlier case failed on merits or defective pleading rather than jurisdiction;
- the litigant lacked due diligence;
- the litigant knew the jurisdictional defect but continued strategically;
- the earlier and later proceedings concern different matters;
- for applications, the reliefs are not the same;
- the earlier proceeding was not civil in nature;
- the parties are materially different;
- the special statute excludes Section 14 or its underlying principle;
- the claimed exclusion period is arithmetically incorrect; or
- there is an unexplained post-termination delay not covered by Section 14.
2024–26 Case Matrix
| Case | Issue | Key principle |
|---|---|---|
| Purni Devi v. Babu Ram, 2024 INSC 259 | Wrong forum / execution | Section 14 advances justice where earlier proceedings were pursued in good faith and with due diligence but failed for jurisdictional or like defect. |
| HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd. v. Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad, 2024 INSC 851 | IBC proceeding followed by Section 11 arbitration application | Section 14(1) uses “same matter in issue”; Section 14(2) requires “same relief”. The two tests are materially different. |
| My Preferred Transformation v. Faridabad Implements, 2025 INSC 56 | Section 34 arbitration limitation | Section 14 exclusion remains conceptually distinct from Section 5 condonation and can operate even where Section 5 is excluded. |
| Smt. Arifa v. Abhiman Apartment CHS, 2025 INSC 875 | Fresh suit after liberty to refile | Liberty to file a fresh suit does not itself revive limitation; Section 14 cannot be used where the earlier suit was merely improperly framed rather than filed in a forum unable to entertain it. |
| Naveen Gupta v. Satish Jangra, 2026 DHC 5083 | Withdrawal of technically defective suit | Good faith and due diligence are fact-sensitive; a technical defect does not by itself prove negligence or bad faith. |
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Section 14 condone delay?
No. Section 14 excludes qualifying time from computation. Section 5 deals with condonation of delay.
Can Section 14 be used for a suit?
Yes. Section 14(1) expressly applies when computing limitation for a suit, subject to its conditions.
Can Section 14 be used for an application?
Yes. Section 14(2) applies to applications, but the earlier and later proceedings must seek the same relief.
Does filing in the wrong court automatically save limitation?
No. Good faith, due diligence, identity of dispute or relief, and failure for jurisdictional or like defect must all be established.
Does liberty to file a fresh suit restart limitation?
No. A general liberty order cannot override the Limitation Act. Section 14(3) applies only in the circumstances specified by the statute.
Can time spent in arbitration-related proceedings be excluded?
Yes, in an appropriate case. Supreme Court authority recognises Section 14 in Section 34 proceedings even though Section 5 is excluded beyond the statutory outer limit.
Can time spent before a tribunal be excluded?
Section 14 textually refers to courts. However, Supreme Court authority recognises that the underlying principles of Section 14 may apply to quasi-judicial proceedings depending on the governing statutory scheme.
What is the difference between “same matter in issue” and “same relief”?
“Same matter in issue” under Section 14(1) is broader and applies to suits. “Same relief” under Section 14(2) is stricter and applies to applications.
Are the first and last days of the earlier proceeding excluded?
Yes. The Explanation states that both the institution date and the termination date of the former proceeding are counted in the period to be excluded.
Primary Authorities
- Limitation Act, 1963 — Sections 2(h), 14 and 29(2).
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order XXIII Rules 1 and 2.
- Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, (2008) 7 SCC 169.
- M.P. Steel Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise, (2015) 7 SCC 58.
- Purni Devi v. Babu Ram, 2024 INSC 259.
- HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd. v. Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad, 2024 INSC 851.
- My Preferred Transformation & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd., 2025 INSC 56.
- Smt. Arifa & Ors. v. Abhiman Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., 2025 INSC 875.
- Naveen Gupta v. Satish Jangra, 2026 DHC 5083.
Authoritative Online Sources
- Limitation Act, 1963 — India Code
- HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd. v. Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad
- Naveen Gupta v. Satish Jangra
- Purni Devi v. Babu Ram
Key Takeaways
- Section 14 excludes qualifying time; it does not condone delay.
- Good faith under the Limitation Act requires due care and attention.
- Due diligence is fact-sensitive but negligence, lapse and strategic delay can defeat the claim.
- Section 14(1) applies to later suits and uses the broader “same matter in issue” test.
- Section 14(2) applies to later applications and requires the same relief.
- Withdrawal with liberty does not automatically restart limitation.
- Section 14 may remain available in arbitration even where Section 5 is excluded.
- The first and last days of the earlier proceeding are included in the excluded interval.
- The strongest Section 14 pleadings contain a precise chronology, the jurisdiction order and transparent limitation arithmetic.
Disclaimer
This article is for general legal education and civil-law awareness only. It does not constitute case-specific legal advice, advertisement or solicitation. Section 14 depends on the nature of the earlier and later proceedings, the forum, jurisdictional defect, identity of dispute or relief, diligence, good faith, statutory limitation scheme and the precise chronology of prosecution.