JUDGMENT D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 1. This appeal by the defendant appellant has been filed against the judgment dated 22.12.1995 and the corresponding decree dated 11.1.1996 passed by the Sub judge VIth, Ranchi in Money Suit No. 3 of 1993 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant/appellant. 2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for decree for a sum of rupees 25 lakhs and also for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to publish in any daily news paper that the plaintiff is innocent and he was removed from the post of Superintendent illegally by asking him to proceed on leave. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that being possessed of requisite qualifications with Degrees in Medicine as well as in Psychiatry, he was posted as the Superintendent of the Ranchi Mansik Arogyashala, Kanke, Ranchi, in September, 1978. During his tenure as the senior-most officer of the Hospital he had acquired vast experience in the field of Psychiatry and had built up a very good public image and a good practice in the field of Psychiatry. Some interested officials with mala fide objectives and designs, managed to get a letter sent to the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, prompting him to ask the plaintiff to hand over charge of the post of Superintendent and pursuant thereto, the defendant by his letter dated 12.9.1994 c directed the plaintiff to hand over the charge of his office to the Deputy Superintendent Dr. B.B. Singh and to proceed on leave. The plaintiff complied with the direction but in the process had suffered mental agony, besides tension and humiliation. Subsequent letters and representations of the petitioner were ignored by the defendant and he had eventually superannuated after attaining the age of his superannuation. Even after his superannuation, his retrial benefits were not promptly paid to him and it was only pursuant to the order of the High Court passed in a writ application filed by the plaintiff that his retiral benefits were released to him. The plaintiff has claimed that the direction of the defendant asking him to proceed on leave after handing over the charge of his office, is in utter violation of the Govt. The plaintiff has claimed that the direction of the defendant asking him to proceed on leave after handing over the charge of his office, is in utter violation of the Govt. Rules and instructions and against the principles of natural justice and on account of such acts, he had suffered not only mental agony and tension but also suffered humiliation or account of lowering down of his prestige in public estimate. It is further claimed that he had served notice under Section 80 CPC on the defendant on 8.1.1993 but even after receipt of the notice, the defendant did not respond to his demand and he therefore filed the suit for damages assessed at Rs. 25 lakhs against the defendant. 4. The defendant had filed written statement denying the entire claim of the plaintiff and disputing the very maintainability of the suit. It was pleaded by the defendant that the suit was not maintainable since the plaintiff did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 80 C.P.C. and that the suit was barred by limitation and further, that no cause of action ever accrued to the plaintiff to file the suit. Further case of the defendant was that the plaintiff in his capacity as the Superintendent of the Hospital was responsible for the management and control of the office and the employees under him, besides the well being of the patients treated at the hospital. In the morning of 5.9.1984, a large number of patients had fled away from the hospital. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, made on the spot inquiry in presence of the plaintiff and found that the plaintiff was fully responsible for the incident. He submitted his report to the Health Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar and to the Commissioner; South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi. Simultaneously, steps were taken by the Administration to bring back the patients to the hospital and they succeeded in bringing back about 100 patients. Further case of the defendant was that on the previous day (4.9.1984), employees of the hospital had wanted to meet the plaintiff, but he refused to meet them and consequently, the employees went on strike. It is stated that being In-charge of the Hospital, the plaintiff had; failed to manage the affairs of the hospital effectively. 5. On the basis of he rival pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues: (i) whether the suit is maintainable? It is stated that being In-charge of the Hospital, the plaintiff had; failed to manage the affairs of the hospital effectively. 5. On the basis of he rival pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues: (i) whether the suit is maintainable? (ii) Whether the notice under Section 80 CPC was given to the defendant; (iii) Whether the suit is barred under the principle of estoppel, waive and acquiescence? (iv) Whether the plaintiff was defamed and suffered from mental agony, tension and humiliations due to the Governments direction to him to proceed on leave. If the plaintiff has been defamed and suffer from mental agony and humiliation, then what is the quantum of damage 6. It is relevant to note here that no specific issue has been framed as to whether the suit was barred by limitation. On the issue. No. 2 relating to the notice under Section 80 CPC, the trial court had relied upon the office copy of the advocate's notice which was adduced in evidence through the lawyer's clerk on behalf of the plaintiff and had also relied upon the receipt purported to have been issued by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, signed purportedly by an employee working in the office and had recorded its finding in favour of the plaintiff that the notice under Section 80 CPC was validly given to the defendant. On issue No. 4, as to whether the plaintiff was defamed and had suffered mental agony, tension and humiliation on account of the direction given to him by the defendant to proceed on leave, the learned court below relied on the news paper cuttings (Ext. 17 and 17G) which carried the news about the plaintiff being asked to proceed on leave and had drawn its inference that the publication of the news did have the effect of causing mental tension and agony to the plaintiff. The. trial court had also relied on the evidence of the witnesses adduced on behalf of the plaintiff, all or whom had claimed that though they had held the plaintiff in high esteem on account of his high qualification and competence, but on account of the news paper reportings, their feelings and respect for the plaintiff was for the time being shattered. The trial court had also placed reliance on Ext. The trial court had also placed reliance on Ext. 4 which was a copy of the letter dated 24.7.1992, addressed by the Secretary to the Govt. to the Accountant General and has drawn inference that the letter had acknowledged that the plaintiff was not at all at fault for remaining without any posting since after the date when he proceeded on leave and till the date of his retirement. The trial court had observed that the letter (Ext.l) whereby the plaintiff was directed to proceed on leave was defamatory in nature and had adversely affected the reputation of the plaintiff. The trial court also observed that the plaintiff was not even granted adequate opportunity to represent his case before asking him to proceed on leave. On the basis of such observations, the trial court had recorded its finding that the plaintiff was entitled to claim damages and has assessed a sum of rupees four lakhs towards defamation and sum of rupees two lakhs for mental agony and rupees one lakh for other injuries. After recording its finding that the suit was maintainable and was not barred by principles of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence, the court decreed that the defendant pay a sum of rupees seven lakh with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum pendente lite and future interest to the plaintiff. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment of the learned court below on the ground that the findings are totally perverse, misconceived and not in consonant with the pleadings of the plaintiff and the evidence on record and has emphasized on three main grounds: (i) that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. (ii) that the suit was not maintainable on account of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 80 CPC; (iii) that no cause of action ever accrued to the plaintiff to file the suit. 8. Elaborating his arguments, learned Counsel submits that (Ext. (ii) that the suit was not maintainable on account of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 80 CPC; (iii) that no cause of action ever accrued to the plaintiff to file the suit. 8. Elaborating his arguments, learned Counsel submits that (Ext. 1) dated 12.9.1984 of the Deputy Commissioner had merely called upon the plaintiff to proceed on leave after handing over the charge of his office to the Deputy Superintendent of the hospital, There is no allegation in the notice whatsoever, nor is there any insinuation made against the plaintiff in the said letter and therefore, there was no occasion for the plaintiff to suffer any mental agony or distress on account of the said letter Learned Counsel further argues that the learned court below has erred in placing reliance upon the Ext. 18 and 19 accepting them to be purported notice under Section 80 CPC and also acknowledging that the said notice was duly served upon the defendants. Learned Counsel explains that the plaintiff has not led any evidence whatsoever as to who, in fact, had delivered the notice and to whom and as such, it cannot be claimed by the plaintiff that the notice was served or delivered to the defendants according to the procedure laid down under Section 80 CPC. Learned Counsel further argues that even in Ext. 4, which is letter dated 24.7.1992 written by the Secretary to the Government and addressed to the Accountant General, there is no reference whatsoever to the letter dated 12.9.1984 or even to the direction given to the plaintiff to proceed on leave. The letter was in fact an explanatory letter only to facilitate payment of the plaintiff's salary for the period he remained without any posting after he had proceeded on leave and till the date of his retirement. Learned Counsel further adds that neither by the letter dated 12.9.1984 (Ext 1), nor by letter dated 24.7.1992 (Ext.4) can the plaintiff claim any cause of action to file the suit. As regards the news paper clippings ( Ext. 17 series), learned Counsel explains that there is no evidence that the report published in the news paper were on the basis of any statement made by the defendant or any officer of the Government and as such, no reliance can be placed on the media reportings. As regards the news paper clippings ( Ext. 17 series), learned Counsel explains that there is no evidence that the report published in the news paper were on the basis of any statement made by the defendant or any officer of the Government and as such, no reliance can be placed on the media reportings. It is lastly submitted that the purported cause of action, as per the plaintiff's claim, accrued to him on the date of service of the letter dated 12.9.1984 by which he was directed to proceed on leave. Yet, the plaintiff did not file the suit for relief claimed by him within period of three years from the date when the cause of action accrued to him and he had chosen to file the suit after about nine years on 27.1.1993 and no explanation has been offered for such delay and as such, the suit is barred by limitation and in fact, the plaint ought to have been rejected under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 6 and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, would argue that no specific plea on the point of limitation was taken by the defendant in their written statement and no issue was therefore framed by the learned court below on this point. Since no issue was framed, the plaintiff was not called upon to lead evidence to rebut the claim of the defendant or the point of limitation and as such the appellant cannot be allowed to raise this issue at this stage of appeal. With reference to the notice under Section 80 CPC, learned Counsel would argue that the plaintiff had adduced evidence by way of filing copy of the legal notice and by way of receipt issued by an employee of the office of the defendant and both these documents were admitted in evidence without any objection raised by the defendant. As such; it is to be deemed that the notice under Section 80 CPC was delivered to the defendant as per the procedure laid down under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the point of cause of action and maintainability of the suit, learned Counsel argues that the cause of action cannot be confined to a single act or transaction. On the point of cause of action and maintainability of the suit, learned Counsel argues that the cause of action cannot be confined to a single act or transaction. Rather, it is the cumulative effect of such act or fact, that gives rise to cause of action for filing the suit. The learned Counsel would explain that the first date of cause of action was 12.9.1984 when the plaintiff was served the letter (Ext. 1) directing him to proceed on leave without assigning reasons. This caused mental anxiety, agony and pain to the plaintiff. The second incident was the paper clippings /reporting published in the newspaper with reference to the direction to the plaintiff by the defendants for proceeding on leave. The third occasion when cause of action accrued to the plaintiff was the date on which he had received a copy of the letter dated 24.7.1992 (Ext.4) wherein it was categorically declared by the Secretary to the Govt. that there was no fault on the part of the plaintiff, learned Counsel would argue that it was only after the receipt of the letter (Ext.4) that the cause of action finally crystallized and accrued to the plaintiff where after he had filed the suit. 10. The issues, which call for determination in this appeal are: (i) whether the finding of the learned court below on the issue as to whether the mandatory provisions of Section 80 CPC was complied with by the plaintiff before institution of the suit is correct? (ii) Whether the finding of the learned court below that the plaintiff did have cause of action for filing the suit and for the relief claimed by him is correct? (iii) whether the appellant can raise the issue of limitation at this stage of appeal. 11. From the pleadings of the plaintiff as appearing in the plaint, it would appear that he has made specific statement that the notice under Section 80 CPC was served upon the defendant. However, from the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff, it appears that the carbon copy of the notice was adduced in evidence and proved and marked as Ext. 18. The receipt purported to have been issued by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, was filed which was accepted in evidence and marked as Ext. 19. It is not the plaintiff's case that the notice was dispatched by post. 18. The receipt purported to have been issued by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, was filed which was accepted in evidence and marked as Ext. 19. It is not the plaintiff's case that the notice was dispatched by post. The claim, on the other hand, is that the notice was delivered by hand. Yet, no evidence was led by the plaintiff as to who had delivered the notice and who had received the notice. No attempt was made by the plaintiff to summon the person who had received the notice. In absence of specific and cogent evidence on this issue, the trial court could not have accepted that the notice was duly delivered as per the provisions of Section 80 C.P.C. 12. As regards the cause of action, the plaintiff has claimed that the cause of action accrued to him on 12.9.1984 when by letter (Ext.l), he was directed to proceed on leave. The plaintiff has claimed that he suffered mental agony on account of such direction. Yet, he has not adduced any evidence to suggest that any stigma was attached to the, direction or that the direction was given to stigmatise him. No evidence was led to suggest that he had either lodged any protest on being directed to proceed on leave that the direction was unjustified. The plaintiff has next claimed of having suffered mental agony on account of publication of the contends of the letter in the news papers. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the publication of any news item in the newspaper, even if it had referred to the plaintiff and had the effect of causing mental agony to the plaintiff, such mental agony cannot be attributed to the defendant, since no evidence was led by the plaintiff to suggest that the reporting in the newspapers was published on the basis of any statement given by the defendant or any officer representing the Government. The plaintiff has next claimed that the letter dated 24.7.1992 (Ext. 4) has given him cause of action for filing the suit, as the letter declares: that the plaintiff was not at fault. The plaintiff has next claimed that the letter dated 24.7.1992 (Ext. 4) has given him cause of action for filing the suit, as the letter declares: that the plaintiff was not at fault. On a bare reading of the contents of the letter, it appears that the letter merely purports to explain that the plaintiff was not given any posting by the department during the period commencing from the date of his proceeding on leave till the date of his retirement. The letter was apparently intended to suggest that the petitioner being not at fault for not rendering any work during the aforesaid period, he is entitled to salary for the said period. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the letter bears no reference whatsoever to the direction given to the plaintiff for proceeding on leave, nor does it suggest even remotely that the Government had acknowledged any fault on its part in the matter of directing the plaintiff to proceed on leave. In fact, the contents of this letter does not bear any reference at all to the circumstances under which the plaintiff was directed to proceed on leave. From the entire facts and circumstances, there does not appear that the defendant had ever indulged in any such act with intent to defame the plaintiff or to lower down his prestige and reputation in the society or with knowledge that such act would have lowered down his prestige and reputation in society. The plaintiff has therefore not been able to establish that any cause of action had ever accrued to him to file the suit. The finding of the learned court below on this issue to the contrary, is misconceived and based on; mere conjectures and surmises and not on proper evaluation of the evidence on record. 13. As regards the ground of limitation, it is true that the trial court did not frame this issue, nor did it record any finding on this issue. From the perusal of the Written statement of the defendant, it does appear that the plea has been raised in one of the paragraphs [of the written statement stating that the suit is barred by limitation. It was therefore incumbent upon the trial court to frame the issue on the point of limitation. From the perusal of the Written statement of the defendant, it does appear that the plea has been raised in one of the paragraphs [of the written statement stating that the suit is barred by limitation. It was therefore incumbent upon the trial court to frame the issue on the point of limitation. The argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent that this issue cannot be raised by the appellant at the appellate stage, is not acceptable. The plea of limitation having been taking by the defendant in their written statement, it was the fault on the part of the trial court in failing to frame the issue. Even otherwise, it was incumbent upon the trial court to consider the provisions of Order 7, Rule 6 and 11 CPC to see as to whether the plaint as filed is maintainable, or whether it is liable to be rejected. The issue of limitation can certainly be taken up under such circumstances even at the appellate stage. From the pleadings of the plaint, it appears that the cause of action accrued to him firstly on 12.9.1984 which was the date on which he was directed to proceed on leave. The second date of cause of action according to him was the date on which the news papers reportings were published, which appears to be the very next date after the plaintiff was served with the letter to proceed on leave. If the above plea of the plaintiff is to be considered, then the suit ought to have been filed within three years from the date of cause of action which accrued to the plaintiff, but the suit was filed after more than nine years. Silence of the plaintiff during the entire period of 9 years would suggest on the other hand, that he suffered no detriment whatsoever on account of the letter dated 12.9.1984 (Ext. 1) directing him to proceed on leave. The suit is certainly barred by limitation. For the reasons discussed above, I do not find merit in this appeal, which is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.