In a suit filed by the plaintiff, the defendant in his written statement has taken the objection of non-impleadment of necessary party. Despite such objection the plaintiff continued the suit and the suit finally was decreed. At the first appellate stage, the plaintiff withdraws the suit with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action and subsequently filed a fresh suit. The period spent by the plaintiff in the earlier suit, under section 14 of Limitation Act is

Solution (By Examveda Team)

What Section 14 requires:
For Section 14 to help you (meaning, to exclude or remove the time spent in the old case), you must show two main things:
1. You were fighting your previous case with "due diligence" (meaning, you were careful and did everything you should have, like a reasonable person).
2. You were acting in "good faith" (meaning, you were honest and had no intention to mislead or waste court's time).
3. The previous case failed because of a technical problem (like the court didn't have the power to hear it, or some other similar reason), and NOT because your claim was wrong on its merits.

Now let's look at our question:
The plaintiff filed a suit. The defendant, right at the beginning, told the plaintiff in his written reply that a "necessary party" was missing from the case.

A "necessary party" is someone who *must* be part of the case for the court to make a complete and fair decision. If a necessary party is missing, the case might not be successful later on.

The important part is that the plaintiff knew about this missing party because the defendant pointed it out. But the plaintiff ignored this objection and continued the suit anyway.

Later, the plaintiff won the case in the first court, but then decided to withdraw it at the appeal stage (a higher court) to file a new one. This was probably because they realized this "missing party" issue could cause problems for them later, and they wanted to fix it.

Why Section 14 DOES NOT apply here:
Since the defendant clearly told the plaintiff about the missing necessary party at the very start, the plaintiff was aware of this defect. By choosing to ignore it and continuing the suit without adding that party, the plaintiff cannot be said to have prosecuted the earlier suit with "due diligence" or in "good faith" regarding this specific defect.

Section 14 is meant to help those who genuinely tried their best but faced unforeseen or technical issues that were not their fault. It's not for situations where someone knowingly ignores a crucial defect pointed out to them.

Therefore, the time spent by the plaintiff in the earlier suit cannot be excluded.

Looking at the options:
* Option A: Is wrong because the plaintiff was *not* diligent or in good faith about the missing party problem, as they chose to ignore the defendant's objection.
* Option B (Correct Answer): Clearly states that the time is not liable to be excluded because the plaintiff cannot be said to have acted with due diligence and in good faith after being informed of the defect. This perfectly matches our understanding of Section 14.
* Option C: Mentions Section 14(3), which is for "execution applications" (when you ask the court to carry out its order), not for filing a new suit. So, it's incorrect.
* Option D: While courts have some power, the main requirements of Section 14 (like due diligence and good faith) must be met first. If they are clearly not met, it's not just a matter of the court's "discretion."

So, the correct answer is Option B. The plaintiff knew about the problem but didn't fix it, so they don't get the special benefit of Section 14 to exclude the time.