Judgment 1. This is an application taken out by the defendants No.1, 2 and 3 for an order that the plaint in this suit be ejected and be taken off the file in the alternative time may be extended to file the written statement on their behalf. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the petitioner along with other defendants for a decree for Rs. 6 lakhs as damages for defamation. Receiver. Injunction attachment. etc. According to the petitioners the suit is not maintainable against the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in their official capacity as they have not been sued in their personal capacities but they have been sued in there official designation which is not permissible in law. The petitioners have further prayed that the plaintiff's plaint itself should be rejected in limine first of all on the ground that the suit is not maintainable secondly the claim of the plaintiff in the suit is barred by the law of limitation. Mr. R. Sinha with Mr. Sen appeared for the petitioners and first of all submitted that the plaint as filed is barred by the law of limitation as according to the averment made in the plaint itself under Paragraph 13 the plaintiff have been acquitted by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 25th September. 1978 whereas the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff on 23rd October, 1979. i.e. the period beyond the period of limitation to that respect Mr. Sinha craved reference to a case reported in 18 CLJ 352. Mr. Sinha farther drew my attention to paragraph 6 of the petition and submitted that it is the plaintiff case that the defendant No. 6 alone lodged complaint with the local Thana alleging that the plaintiffs removed six windows and two doors from the ground floor of the requisitioned portion on a particular day. From the said averments made in the plaint it would appear that it is a bald statement and is devoid of any particulars at all as in a suit for malicious prosecution the necessary averment that the complaint has been falsely and maliciously lodged are missing. Hence from such averment it would not be clear that this is a suit for recovery of damages for malicious prosecution or not. In that respect Mr. Hence from such averment it would not be clear that this is a suit for recovery of damages for malicious prosecution or not. In that respect Mr. Sinha Craved reference to Or, 6 Rule 10 and submitted that the particular are to be given in a plant and such provisional are mandatory in the absence of such particulars no relief can be given on such plaint. Moreover according to Mr, Sinha. If it is suit for damages for malicious prosecution then there is no cause of action against the defendants Nos. 5 to 11 except the defendant No.6 who is the only complainant the only allegation against defendants Nos. 5 to 11 except the defendant No.6 is that they have given false evidence in a case whereby the plaintiff were prosecuted and ultimately the plaintiff were acquitted of the said charge accordingly the defendant Nos. 5 to 11 are guilty of committing perjury. In a case where persons are guilty of committing perjury no civil suit lies for damages of committing such perjury, but the ordinary course of prosecuting the perjurer is open before a party. But no civil suit lies for damages against a perjurer for giving falste evidence. Mr. Sinha submitted that complaint made to a police bona fide is privileged. Hence no suit for defamation would lie on the statement contained in a complaint to the police which has been done bona fide. In that respect craved reference to various decisions reported in AIR 1939 Cal. 477, AIR 1941 Mad 26 , AIR 1950 Rajasthan 169. AIR 1962 Pat. 229 . 2. So far as the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned they have not been sued in their personal Capacity but the official designations have been given in the plaint which is not permissible. In that respect reference may be made to AIR 1962 Cal. 283 where it has been held that the parties mute be sued in their individual name. So far as the point of limitation is concerned Mr. Sinha has also relied in a case reported in AIR 1953 Cal. 146 where it has been held that a plaint can be rejected be under Or. 7 Rule 11 if it appears from the averments made in the point that is it clearly barred by the laws of limitation. 3. Mr. Sinha has also relied in a case reported in AIR 1953 Cal. 146 where it has been held that a plaint can be rejected be under Or. 7 Rule 11 if it appears from the averments made in the point that is it clearly barred by the laws of limitation. 3. Mr. Prabir Kumar Majumdar appeared on behalf of the defendants Nos 5 to 11 and he adopted the submissions made by Mr. Sinha. The learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submitted that this suit ii not barred by the law of limitation as it is a combined suit fur malicious prosecution as also for defamation. Hence this present suit is not barred by the law of limitation. If it is a suit for malicious prosecution then he is governed by Art. 74 of the Limitation Act which provides that in case of compensation for malicious prosecution the period of limitation is one year from the date when the plaintiff is acquitted of the prosecution or otherwise terminated. In view of the averments made in the plaint that the plaintiffs were acquitted on the 25th September, 1978 and in view of the fact that 25th September. 1979 fell during the long vacation of this High Court, and the suit has been filed on the reopening day, i.e., Oil the 23rd October. 1979, hence the suit has been filed within the period as prescribed under the Limitation Act. So it is not barred by the law of limitation. 4. from the various averments made in the plaint it would appear that the plaintiff has not set out the fact and/or the pleading so as to make the suit a suit for damages for malicious prosecution. Moreover, from the averments made in paragraph 15 it would appear that the plaintiffs themselves have averred in the said paragraph that the present Suit is a suit for defamation hence, no Court fees are payable in term of the amendment of S. 7 of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1974. If it is not a suit for malicious prosecution and If according to the plaintiff it is a suit for defamation then the alleged defamation was made by the defendant No. 6 by written complaint lodged with the police on 29th May, 1975. Hence, the present Suit for defamation against the defendant No.6 is wholly barred by the law of limitation. Hence, the present Suit for defamation against the defendant No.6 is wholly barred by the law of limitation. So far as the plaintiff case against the other defendant an concerned, there are no averments made against those defendants that they are guilty of committing defamation. Hence as indicated earlier, the only case that has been made against the defendant is that they have committed perjury. A. indicated above, no civil suit lies for damages for committing perjury. Hence the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against the defendants Nos. 5 10 11 except the defendant No.6. So far as tile defendant No, 6 is concerned as the plaintiff claims the suit to be a suit for defamation the claim against the defendant No. 6 is barred by the law of limitation. So far as the defendants No. 2 and 3 are concerned as indicated above they have not been sued in their personal capacities but their official designations have been utilised in civil proceeding which is no permissible under the law. 5. In view of what has been stated earlier am of the view that the petitioners arc entitled to get an order in terms of prayers (a) and (C) of the petition. There will be stay of operation of the order for two weeks. Plaint rejected.