Limitation Act ") was not available to Har Chain Singh since he was pursuing a remedy before Tehsildar in which reliefs sought were not those which are claimed in the 1988 suit The proceeding before the Tehsildar was for correction of the mutation entry and not for setting aside the lease deed or for allotment or even partition Therefore, according to Mr Sethi, prayers made Cs(os) 1099/1983, 1138/1987 & 2996/1988 Page 50 of 94 in the suit could not have been granted by Tehsildar In this regard, my attention was also drawn to the fact that no application had been filed on behalf of Har Chain Singh under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for exclusion of the time spent before the Tehsildar It was further submitted that the application of Har Chain Singh filed with the Tehsildar culminated with the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 20 03 1989 (Ex PW1/X-1) whereby, the matter was remanded to the Tehsildar for further consideration Consequently, Section 14 of the Limitation Act would have no obligation since it was not dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction It was the contention of the learned counsel that the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for exclusion of the time would have application only if proceedings before the Tehsildar related to a matter which was subject matter of the 1988 suit; the proceedings were carried out before the Tehsildar in good faith; and lastly, the application made to the Tehsildar was rejected for defect of jurisdiction Reliance in this was placed on the judgement of Jai Prakash vs Satnarain Singh 1994 Supp (1) SCC 153 and Anil Pratap Singh Chauhan vs Onida Savak Ltd 5

AIR 2003 Delhi 252

All India Reporter, Delhi Series

India - Delhi

Cases Referring to this Case