SHEELA DEVI & OTHERS Vs. MANOHAR LAL LAGAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision is directed against the order dated 6.11.2017 (Annexure P-1), whereby the application submitted by the petitioner-defendants for rejection of the plaint being, prima-facie, barred under Article 74 of the Limitation Act, has been dismissed.

(2.) Mr.Gurmohan Singh Bedi, learned counsel for the petitioner- defendants submitted that the respondent-plaintiff instituted the civil suit on 3.2.2017 claiming the following relief:-

(3.) During the course of the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this court to Para 14 of the plaint to submit that the suit, ex-facie, was barred by limitation as the limitation for filing the suit for malicious prosecution under Article 74 of Limitation Act is one year when the judgment has been rendered. As per averment in the plaint, it was alleged that Dhirat Ram NRI, being resident of UK, appointed his nephew, i.e., plaintiff to file the civil suit, for, a criminal complaint was filed by the petitioner-defendants titled as "Sheela Devi Versus Manohar Lal and others" under Sections 323, 341, 354, 382, 148 and 149 IPC. Vide order dated 15.10.2012, the aforementioned complaint was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar. The petitioner-defendants filed criminal revision before the Additional District Judge, which was also dismissed vide order dated 3.2.2014 and in view of the aforementioned Para 14 of the plaint, cause of action accrued which resulted into filing of the suit on 3.2.2017. He submitted that even if the pith and substance of the suit is not treated as malicious for damages, the limitation is 3 years, for, complaint was dismissed on 15.10.2012, whereas the suit has been filed on 3.2.2017, i.e., after almost 4 years and 4 months.