Section 42 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Section 14 Civil Code of Conduct (VV 1908), O XXIII, RR 1 and 2 Second, filing the limitation, was filed first in the year 1986 on the count of the plaintiffs, Was withdrawn. On the 9th of 2001, the Supreme Court, with permission to file a new case, was subsequently submitted by the plaintiffs that they were entitled to benefit from Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and In the latter case the limit was not restricted. The provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 did not depend on the discharge of suit filed with the court's permission to establish a new trial for the same reason, in view of the provisions of OS XXII, R2, CPC. ? The statute of limitations did not apply as the case was set up and the plaintiffs had to show that such suit was set up and within time, if the lawsuit was affected by the limitation, the plaintiffs were burdened. To show that they were, therefore, with Delegation, proceeded against another civil proceeding which was based on the same proceedings and proceeded in good faith in court, which For reasons such as malfunction or nature of the authority, the limitation was unable to be read and entertained with the explanation of section 14 of the Act, 1908. Be entitled to exclude the period used in such proceedings The plaintiff failed to prove all the facts necessary to prove his entitlement to the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, the Supreme Court approved. Refused to interfere with the decision made
