Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2490 (RAJ)

Ramlal v. Madan Lal

2005-09-16

PRAKASH TATIA

body2005
Judgment Prakash Tatia, J.- Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The only point involved in this appeal is whether the suit, which was filed by the plaintiff on 03.05.1993 on the basis of cause of action accrued to the plaintiff on 02.05.1992 is within the period of limitation or not. 3. It appears from the facts of the case that the plaintiffs were acquitted on 02.05.1992 in a criminal case lodged by the defendants-respondents. The plaintiff filed the suit for malicious prosecution on 03.05.1993. The defendant submitted an application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, raising objection that suit has been filed after prescribed period of limitation of one year under Section 74 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore, suit deserves to be dismissed. In the trial Court, it was submitted that though the cause of action accrued on 02.05.1992, but in view of the Section 12 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, the date of accrual of cause of action is required to be excluded while counting the period of limitation then the suit could have been filed by 02.05.1992. 02.05.1992 was the holiday being Sunday, therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit on 03.05.1992. Therefore, the suit is within limitation. 4. The trial Court held that since the case filed is governed by specific provision of law of limitation and that is Section 74 of the Act of 1963, therefore, the period of limitation will start from the date of acquittal of the plaintiffs and the general provision covering the subject of limitation under Section 12 cannot be applied. In view of the above, according to trial Court, the suit should have been filed on or before 01.05.1993 and since the suit has been filed after 01.05.1993, it is barred by time. The trial Court, therefore, rejected the plaint of the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC on the ground of suit being barred by law. 5. It is clear from the facts mentioned above itself that cause of action accrued to the plaintiff for filing of the suit on 02.05.1992, the date on which the plaintiffs were acquitted. Article 74 only prescribed the period of limitation for filing suit for compention on the ground of malicious prosecution. 5. It is clear from the facts mentioned above itself that cause of action accrued to the plaintiff for filing of the suit on 02.05.1992, the date on which the plaintiffs were acquitted. Article 74 only prescribed the period of limitation for filing suit for compention on the ground of malicious prosecution. How the period of limitation is to be computed is given in part III of the Indian Limitation Act and Section 12 very specifically provides that in computing the period of limitation for any suit the day from which such period is to be reckoned, shall be excluded. Therefore, the computation of period of limitation can only be made in accordance with Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Indian Limitation Act in this case. The trial Court committed serious error in holding that the Article 74 is a special provisions of law applicable to the cases for filing the suit for possession for malicious prosecution and Section 12 cannot be applied. 6. In view of the above, the appeal deserves to be allowed, hence allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial Court on 15.02.1997 is set aside. The suit is held to be within limitation. The trial Court shall now decide the suit afresh expeditiously. Both the parties are directed to remain present before the trial Court on 110.2005.