DINKAR RAJARAM POLE Vs. RAMRAO NANDANWANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application is directed against the preliminary findings recorded by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded, on 19 -10 -1981, in Special Civil Suit No. 26 of 1976, holding that the claim for damages for libel was barred by limitation. The facts giving rise to this litigation may briefly be stated as follows :

(2.) THE present petitioner D. R. Pole is a practicing Advocate from Parbhani district bar. The defendant respondent was in the Government service at Nanded District of this region. It appears that the prosecution under section 5(1)(c) read with section 5(2)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sections 409 and 161 of the Indian Penal Code was launched against him before the Special Judge, Nanded The respondent engaged the petitioner as his Advocate for defending him. His fees were settled, but there is a dispute regarding the quantum of fees. It was the case of the present petitioner that Rs. 700/ - were paid to him out of the agreed fees of Rs. 1,200/ - . The prosecution ended in the conviction of the present respondent in the trial Court. However, he was acquitted by the appellate Court. A sum of Rs. 108 was deposited by the present respondent in the Court of Special Judge, Parbhani, towards the Bhatta of defence witnesses which he proposed to examine. However, as no defence witnesses were examined the same was lying with the Court. The present petitioner informed the respondent that he would take necessary steps to withdraw this amount and adjust it towards his unpaid fees. He also called upon the defendant -respondent to make the remaining balance good. There was some correspondence between the parties. The defendant -respondent took a stand that he had paid full fees as was agreed and the petitioner was exploiting him. He, therefore, informed the Court where the amount was lying in the deposit that he had terminated the appellant of as his counsel and that the amount should not be paid to him. It is not necessary to consider the whole correspondence.

(3.) IT was the contention raised by the defendant that he sent an application supported by an affidavit to the Bar Council of the Maharashtra requesting them to take necessary disciplinary action against the present petitioner. He however, contends that the application was sent by him on 21st January, 1975, whereas the affidavit was sworn by him on 12th February, 1975, both at Nanded. His case was that if at all the application and the affidavit contains defamatory statements the statements were published on 21st January, 1975, and on 12th February, 1975 and hence the limitation would start running from these two dates. Th6 limitation for institution of suits of such nature has been prescribed by Article 75 of the Limitation Act and the limitation for a suit for compensation of libel is one year from the date when the libel is published. It was his contention that the limitation expired on 21 -1 -1976 or at the most on 12 -2 -1976, and therefore, the suit instituted on 7 -6 -1976 obviously was barred by limitation as far as the claim for compensation of liability is concerned.