Rule of Limitation of Suit Amaresh Patel LANDMARK JUDGMENT Fri, May 28, 2021, at ,10:15 AM Title of the Case – Rule of Limitation of Suit Name of the case – P.S. Malik vs. High Court of Delhi & Anr., W.P. (C) No. 705 of 2018 (Delhi High Court)Date of Judgment – 21st August, 2019Judges: Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Navin SinhaSubject and sections involved – Section 14 of Limitation ActIssue: Whether there is any privity of contract between the parties to claim compensation? Fact of the Case: The petition filed for recovery of damages. The Plaintiff, Natesan Agencies had allegedly taken certain parcels of land on lease, initially for 5 years and then for 25 years, from its owner Sri Nanamemalai Jeer Mutt for plantation and co-related purposes.The case is that Govt. of Tamil Nadu, through notification, included the land in question in a wild life sanctuary under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 for which appropriate compensation were agreed upon.The grievance of the plaintiff-appellant has been that on one hand, the land in question was not allowed to be used because of the proposal for its acquisition for wild life sanctuary and on other hand, no amount of compensation was paid. Later, the said land was excluded from wild life sanctuary.Single judge bench of High Court partily allowed the appeal for compensation but division bench found no case for award of any damages to the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff preferred the present appeal.Ratio of the case - The division bench of Supreme Court observed that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation and even otherwise, the plaintiff had no case on merits to claim damages from the state.The bench relied on two important judgment for the purpose of the judgment. First one is of Zafar Khan & ors v. Board of Revenue, U.P. & ors, 1984 (Supp) SCC 505, wherein it was held that in order to attract the application of section 14 (1), the parties seeking its benefit must satisfy the court that: (i) that the party as the plaintiff was prosecuting another civil proceeding with due diligence; (ii) that the earlier proceeding and the later proceeding related to the same matter in issue, and (iii) the former proceeding was being prosecuted in good faith in a court with, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, in unable to entertain it…” The bench replied for scope of section 14 of Limitation Act in Yashwant Deorao, wherein it was held that there can be no exclusion under Section 14 of the Limitation Act of the time spent in insolvency proceedings against the judgment debtor, in computing the period of limitation for executing a decree against him, as the two proceedings were not for obtaining the same relief.