Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1017 (CAL)

Bijit Kumar Basu v. Sukumar Ghosh

2011-08-02

PRASENJIT MANDAL

body2011
Judgment :- Prasenjit Mandal, J. Challenge is to the Order No.12 dated July 23, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Alipurduar in O.C. No.5 of 2009 thereby rejecting an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. The plaintiff / opposite party filed a suit for damages against the petitioners alleging defamation and claiming an amount of Rs.5 lakh. The defendants / petitioners entered an appearance and they filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the said suit is barred by limitation. That application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred by the defendants. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned advocate for the petitioners and on going through the materials on record I find that the learned Trial Judge has committed wrong in dismissing the said application. The plaintiff has contended in the plaint that the defamatory statements were published in the Anandabazar Patrika dated December 12, 2006 and thus, his prestige has been lowered in the eye of the public and as such, he has filed the suit for damages. Accordingly, the cause of action to file the suit arose on December 12, 2006, but the suit for damages was filed in April 2009, that is, more than two years and six months from the date of arising the cause of action. In a suit of publication of libel, the limitation, according to Article 75 of the Limitation Act is for one year from the date of publication. Since, the suit was filed beyond the period of one year from the date of publication, the said suit is not maintainable at all and it is barred by limitation. The plaintiff has contended in the plaint that immediately on the publication, he was proceeding against the petitioners in a criminal case and that case was dismissed. Even, when a revisional application was filed, that revisional application was also dismissed on contest. This is on a separate matter and the plaintiff took steps for punishment of the petitioners for publication of the alleged libel. Even, when a revisional application was filed, that revisional application was also dismissed on contest. This is on a separate matter and the plaintiff took steps for punishment of the petitioners for publication of the alleged libel. It has no connection with the civil suit at all and in fact, the plaintiff did not pray for exemption of the period inasmuch as he was proceeding with the criminal case, under Section 14 of the Limitation Act in his plaint. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the suit is barred by limitation and in order to decide such fact, evidence is not at all required. On perusal of the plaint, it is evident that the suit is barred by limitation. Therefore, I am of the view that the learned Trial Judge has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him causing miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the impugned order bears errors of law and it cannot be supported. The revisional application, therefore, succeeds. It is allowed. The application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. filed by the petitioners stands allowed. As a result, the plaint stands rejected.