As per case facts, a company (Plaintiff/Appellant) sought a loan from a bank (Defendant) for a real estate project, depositing upfront charges. Despite the loan being sanctioned, disputes arose, leading ... the company to file writ petitions for loan disbursement and later, alternatively, for the refund of deposited fees. After withdrawing the writ petition with liberty to pursue other remedies, the company filed a recovery suit. The Commercial Court dismissed this suit as time-barred, refusing to apply the benefit of a specific limitation statute. The question arose whether the Commercial Court was justified in ruling the suit time-barred and denying the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to the Plaintiff. Finally, the High Court determined that the cause of action accrued later than initially presumed, given the bank's continued engagement. It concluded that the Commercial Court incorrectly denied the benefit of Section 14, as the Plaintiff had pursued prior legal remedies with due diligence and good faith, and the relief sought for refund in the suit was consistent with the amended prayer in the earlier proceedings. Consequently, the High Court set aside the lower court's judgment, remitting the case for further adjudication on its merits.