MAN DAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACING trial before the District and Sessions Judge, Udhampur, the deceased, son of the appellant was killed by inmates of the Jail on 10-12-1991. The alleged occurrence took place within the premises of Central Jail Udhampur. Failure on part of the jail authorities to protect the life of the deceased, prompted the present appellant to seek compensation to the tune of Rs. 5.00 lacs from the respondents. Her initial efforts to seek protection under article 226 failed on account of the fact that the dispute was a question of fact which could only be decided by the Civil Court. While disposing of the writ petition, appellant was advised to approach the civil Court for the same. Suit in the form of pauperis came to be filed before the Principal District Judge, Jammu. After the conclusion of the trial, the District Judge found the appellant entitled to the compensation of Rs. 2.00 lacs while deciding issue No. 4 framed in the case. He, however, dismissed the suit of the appellant on account of laches invoking Article 22, First schedule of Limitation Act which provides limitation for filing the suit for compensation within a period of one year. It is revealed from the finding of the Learned District Judge that the date of occurrence was 10.12.91 and the suit was filed on 27.01.93. According to the finding of the District Judge, there was delay of 48 days in filing the present suit. Feeling aggrieved of the decree passed by the learned District Judge, the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) THE trial Court did not examine the plea of the petitioner that before filing the suit, writ petition was filed and delay if any, in filing the suit within the limitation period was on account of perusing the remedy in good faith. Least the trial Court could have done, was to examine the import of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Section 14 of the Limitation Act enumerates that time spent in prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding has to be excluded while computing the period of limitation. This has not been done by the trial Court.