Section 14 explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
Section 14 helps a plaintiff or applicant who went to the wrong court by honest mistake. The time spent prosecuting that earlier proceeding with due diligence and in good faith is excluded when working out the period for the later suit or application. The section has conditions, and each one has to be met.
This article follows the consolidated text of the Act consulted (latest amendment shown: Act 46 of 1999). Later amendments should be checked before you rely on it.
Under section 14(1), in computing the period for a suit, the time during which the plaintiff prosecuted another civil proceeding against the defendant with due diligence is excluded, if the proceeding related to the same matter in issue and was prosecuted in good faith in a court unable to entertain it because of defect of jurisdiction or a like cause. Sub-section (2) gives the same for an application, sub-section (3) deals with a fresh suit on permission, and the Explanation counts days and treats misjoinder as a like cause.
Section 14(1): suits
Section 14(1) reads: "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."
The conditions can be set out in a table.
| Condition | What the text requires |
|---|---|
| The time | The time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting another civil proceeding |
| Diligence | "with due diligence" |
| The forum | In a court of first instance, or of appeal, or of revision |
| The opposite party | The proceeding is "against the defendant" |
| The subject | It "relates to the same matter in issue" |
| Good faith | It is "prosecuted in good faith" (section 2(h): nothing is done in good faith which is not done with due care and attention) |
| The defect | The court is, "from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature", unable to entertain it |
If any condition is missing, the text gives no exclusion. A proceeding filed in a court that could have heard the matter, or filed without care and attention, does not fit.
A date illustration with invented facts: the Schedule gives three years for a claim that begins on 1 January 2023. Kavita Foods files a suit for the price of goods in a court on 1 June 2025 with due diligence and in good faith. The proceeding ends on 1 December 2025 because that court, from defect of jurisdiction, is unable to entertain it. Kavita Foods then files in the right court. The time from the first filing to the end of the first proceeding is excluded, subject to the Explanation on counting days below, and the three years are extended by that time. The days before 1 June 2025 and after the proceeding ended still count.
If you are weighing which forum to approach, see our guide on jurisdiction of civil courts. For a commercial dispute, a commercial suit filing consultation can help you check forum and dates together.
Section 14(2): applications
Section 14(2) gives a parallel rule for an application. In computing the period 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 the 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.
Note the different wording for the subject: for a suit the proceeding must relate to "the same matter in issue" and be against "the defendant"; for an application it must be "against the same party for the same relief".
Section 14(3): a fresh suit on permission
Section 14(3) begins "Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 2 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)". It says 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 that Order, where 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.
So where a plaintiff withdraws a suit with the court's permission to file a fresh suit, because the first suit must fail for a jurisdictional defect or a like cause, the exclusion of time in sub-section (1) is available for the fresh suit. The sub-section is tied to permission granted on that particular ground. The text does not mention permission granted on any other ground.
The Explanation
The Explanation has three clauses.
| Clause | Rule |
|---|---|
| (a) | In excluding the time during which a former civil proceeding was pending, the day on which that proceeding was instituted and the day on which it ended shall both be counted |
| (b) | A plaintiff or an applicant resisting an appeal shall be deemed to be prosecuting a proceeding |
| (c) | Misjoinder of parties or of causes of action shall be deemed to be a cause of a like nature with defect of jurisdiction |
Clause (a): both days are counted
The day of institution and the day the earlier proceeding ended both count as time in the former proceeding. In the illustration above, 1 June 2025 and 1 December 2025 are both counted as part of the excluded time. The consequence is that the excluded time includes both end days.
Clause (b): resisting an appeal
A plaintiff or applicant who resists an appeal is deemed to be prosecuting a proceeding. So the time during which a party was defending an appeal in the earlier proceeding falls within the "prosecuting" requirement, provided the other conditions of the section are met.
Clause (c): misjoinder
Where the earlier proceeding failed because of misjoinder of parties or of causes of action, the Explanation treats it as a cause "of a like nature" with defect of jurisdiction. The section therefore does not stop at wrong-court cases. It extends to this one defect, and the text does not name further defects beyond "other cause of a like nature".
Points the text leaves out
- The Act does not list examples of "defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature", apart from misjoinder in the Explanation.
- It does not define "due diligence". It does define "good faith" in section 2(h).
- It does not say anything about the court's practice or about how the earlier proceeding must have ended. This article states only what the text says.
Section 14 excludes time. It does not itself condone a delay. For appeals and applications that are late after all exclusions, see section 5, which does not apply to suits. For other exclusions, see sections 12 and 13 and section 15.
Section 29(2) lets a special or local law fix its own period and applies sections 4 to 24 to it only so far as that law does not expressly exclude them. Never apply a Schedule period to a tax, insolvency, company, arbitration, consumer, MSME or cheque dishonour proceeding; check the special law.
For an understanding of how a plaint is built, see plaint structure and drafting under the CPC.
Need help with a case filed in the wrong forum?
If your earlier case was filed in a court that could not hear it, the order, the dates and the relief claimed all matter when you refile. Our team can review them with you and plan the next filing through commercial suit filing support.
Key takeaways
- Section 14(1) excludes time spent prosecuting another civil proceeding with due diligence and in good faith in a court unable to entertain it.
- The earlier proceeding must relate to the same matter in issue and be against the defendant.
- Section 14(2) gives the same for applications, against the same party for the same relief.
- Section 14(3) applies sub-section (1) to a fresh suit filed on permission under rule 1 of Order XXIII where the first suit must fail for a jurisdictional or like defect.
- The day of institution and the day the earlier proceeding ended are both counted.
- Misjoinder of parties or causes of action is treated as a cause like defect of jurisdiction.
- A special or local law may fix a different period (section 29(2)).
Read next
- Section 5: condonation of delay and sufficient cause
- Section 15: exclusion of time of stay, notice, sanction and the defendant's absence from India
- Section 21: adding or substituting a new plaintiff or defendant
- Jurisdiction of civil courts: pecuniary, territorial and subject matter
Disclaimer: Based on a consolidated text of the Limitation Act, 1963 and its Schedule whose latest amendment shown is Act 46 of 1999, as consulted on 2 October 2026. A special or local law may fix a different period; later amendments and the current procedural law should be checked. This article is general information, not legal advice; check the official text before acting.