Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2508 (MAD)

Ansar Basha v. Mohamed Abdul Khadir & Another

2007-08-09

CHITRA VENKATARAMAN

body2007
Judgment :- 1. The prayer in the Suit is for compensation of a sum of Rs.55,00,000/- in respect of the proceedings taken against the plaintiff in the Criminal Court, resulting in acquittal. 2. The Suit is opposed by the respondents herein on the ground that the filing of the Suit is barred by limitation as per Article 74 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes only one year limitation from the date of acquittal. 3. The facts leading to the filing of the Suit are as follows: The plaintiff is working as a selection grade lecturer in the Department of Commerce in Quaide Milleth College, Medavakkam, Chennai and the defendants are also working in the same college. It is stated that the plaintiff along with 20 other staff members of the college were prosecuted in two Criminal Complaints preferred by the defendants before the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, Chennai, which were taken up on file in C.C. No.144 of 2001 and 147 of 2001 respectively. The plaintiff was impleaded as 18th accused in both the Complaints. Ultimately, by order-dated 17. 2005, the Complaints were rejected and the plaintiff was acquitted. The plaintiff submits that he was forced to spend his valuable time in attending the Court. The appearance of the plaintiff as an accused in the Criminal Court not only damaged his reputation in the mind of others including his friends, students and relatives but also caused him mental agony and suffering. It is stated in paragraph 8 of the plaint that the complaints against the plaintiff were vexatious, motivated and deliberate. In the above circumstances, he issued a notice to the defendants on 21. 2007 calling upon them to pay compensation at Rs.20,00,000/-, which was received by the 1st defendant on 2. 2007. The postal department returned the notice addressed to the second defendant with an endorsement stating that there is no such person. It is stated in the background of the proceedings taken against him before the Criminal Court, the petitioner values the claim for damages at Rs.20,00,000/-, however he restricts the claim to Rs.5,50,000/-as against each defendant. The cause of action is stated to have arisen at Perambur, Chennai within the jurisdiction of this Court, when the plaintiff facing the, prosecution, suffered mental agony apart from physical and monetary lo till the judgment was rendered on 17. 2005. Hence the plaintiff has to be compensated for damages. 4. The cause of action is stated to have arisen at Perambur, Chennai within the jurisdiction of this Court, when the plaintiff facing the, prosecution, suffered mental agony apart from physical and monetary lo till the judgment was rendered on 17. 2005. Hence the plaintiff has to be compensated for damages. 4. The Suit is sought to be resisted by the defendants herein saying the very averments of the plaintiff for the claim is barred by limitation as Article 74 of the Limitation Act. Leaving aside for a moment the Criminal Revision filed by the defendants before the Court, the contentions of defendants is that under the provisions of the Limitation Act, the Plaint is maintainable as the Suit has been filed after a period of one year. 5. The plaintiff has filed a counter to this allegation stating that as per Article 137 in third division of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation is 3 years for filing a Suit. The cause of action had arisen merely on the malicious prosecution because of the tortuous act in making Complaints against this plaintiff. He places reliance on the following decisions of the Supreme Court .(i) Mayar (H.K.) Ltd & Ors. v. Owners and Parties, Vessel M .V. Fortune Express & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 1828 ; .(ii) Balasaria Construction (P) Ltd v. Hanuman Seva Trust and others, 2006 (5) SCC 658 ; (iii) Elmano Menino Dias v. The Archbishop, Archdiocese of Goa & Daman & Ors., AIR 2007 (NOC) 1637 (Bom.); and submitted that considering the questions of fact and law raised it is not per in this case for considering the question of limitation at this stage elf. In the above circumstances, the plaintiff prays for the rejection of the Application made by the defendants. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendants placed reliance on the decision in the case of Madho Lal v. Hari Shanker and another, AIR 1963 All. 547 , and submitted that the very averments in the Plaint discloses that the cause of action is stated to be based on the allegation of malicious prosecution. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendants placed reliance on the decision in the case of Madho Lal v. Hari Shanker and another, AIR 1963 All. 547 , and submitted that the very averments in the Plaint discloses that the cause of action is stated to be based on the allegation of malicious prosecution. Considering the facts projected to base the Suit remedy, Article 74 is clearly attracted and as such even after acquittal in the Criminal Court, as per the decision referred to by the defendant, any claim for damages shall be computed as one year from the date of Criminal Court Judgment. Hence going by the plaintiff the same deserves to be non-suited before this Court. 7. I agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the defendants herein. As seen from the decision reported in Madho Lal v. Hari Shanker and another, AIR 1963 All. 547 , referred to above, in a case where the plaintiff proceeds to claim for damages, the period of limitation has to be calculated from the date of the Judgment and the appropriate entry will be Article 74. It is further stated in the said decision that even though the accused might have been discharged, if the criminal proceedings were be taken on further Appeal, for calculation of limitation, the date of discharge shall be the starting point and hence going by the decision of Madho Lal v. Hari Shanker and another, AIR 1963 All. 547 , I do not find any justification in accepting the plaintiffs case. 8. As regards the decisions referred to by the plaintiff, particularly the decision reported in Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. & Ors v. Owners and Parties, Vessel M .V. Fortune Express & Ors, AIR 2006 SC 1828 , may be noted wherein it is for money Suit. Considering the disputed fact and the factual issues therein and the rights of the parties which need to be gone into, the Apex Court held that so long as the Plaint discloses some cause of action which requires determination by the Court, mere fact that in the opinion of a Judge, the plaintiff may not succeed, cannot be a ground for rejection of a Plaint. Hence on the view that the cause of action is a bundle of facts which require to be proved for obtaining relief, the material facts need to be stated and if on a perusal of the Plaint the cause of action requires further probe, the Plaint cannot be rejected during the initial stage. The facts herein does not support the plaintiffs reliance placed on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. & Ors. v. Owners and Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 1828 . 9. As regards the second decision reported in Balasaria Construction (P) Ltd. v. Hanuman Seva Trust and others, 2006 (5) SCC 658 , it is a case relating to the right over the immovable property. In the context of the nature of the disputes raised therein, the Apex Court held that the question of limitation is mixed question of law and fact. Ex facie on a prima facie reading of the Plaint, it cannot be held that the Suit is barred by limitation. 10. As regards the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the plaintiff reported in Elmano Menino Dias v. The Archbishop, Archdiocese of Goa & Daman & Ors, AIR 2007 (NOC) 1637 (Born.), it is a case where the Suit is for declaration and injunction. Considering the issue before the Court as to whether the provisions of special law i.e., Canon Law would apply or whether provisions of Limitation Act would apply were to be considered not at the stage of the initial proceedings but at the time of detailed analysis. The High Court rejected the plea of the defendant be proceed with the merits of the claim in the Suit. There being no dispute as regards the applicability of Canon law therein, the Bombay High Court held that it was a futile exercise to consider the provisions of law to non suit the plaintiff therein. 11. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the plaintiff hence needs to be understood in the background of facts stated therein. A perusal of the Plaint presented before this Court discloses the cause of action as one relating to the prosecution taken against the plaintiff, which ultimately ended in acquittal. 11. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the plaintiff hence needs to be understood in the background of facts stated therein. A perusal of the Plaint presented before this Court discloses the cause of action as one relating to the prosecution taken against the plaintiff, which ultimately ended in acquittal. Hence placing reliance on the acquittal and the mental agony underwent by the plaintiff herein, the present Suit has been filed before this Court seeking compensation. Considering the facts stated in the Plaint that the cause of the filing of the Suit emanates from the prosecution of the plaintiff ending in an acquittal, applying Article 74 of the Limitation Act, I hold that the plaintiffs claim is barred by limitation. In such circumstances, the Suit is rejected at the initial stage itself. No costs. Consequently, connected Application is allowed.