TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... although limitation has not been set up as a defence. The suit is clearly for compensation for malicious prosecution and the period of limitation prescribed by Article 74 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act wherefor is one year starting from the date when the plaintiff is acquitted or the prosecution is otherwise terminated. The plaintiff was acquitted on 5th March, 2004 and on which date, according to the plaint also, the cause of action for the suit accrued to the plaintiff. The suit thus had to be instituted on or before 4th March, 2005. Though the suit being barred by time, there is no need to deal with the other aspects but I may only add that a perusal of the judgment of acquittal of the plaintiff from a reading thereof, does not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m was caused to any neighbour resident including family members of the plaintiff; (iii) that the defendant No.5 Mr. Niranjan Singh aforesaid, resident of H.No.J-1754, Jahangirpuri, Delhi however called the police and demanded examination of contents of cement used in the process of construction and to which the plaintiff agreed; (iv) that the cement used was found to be genuine; (v) that the defendant No.5 however asked the plaintiff for a sum of ₹ 50,000/-, under threat of implicating the plaintiff in civil and criminal cases; (vi) that on the refusal of the plaintiff to pay, the defendant No.5 subjected the plaintiff and his family members to harassment, of which complaints dated 25th February, 2002, 8th April, 2002, 9th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tial agency and vide order in which, the investigation was transferred to the District Investigating Unit North West; (xiv) that however in the meanwhile charge sheet had been filed by defendant No.4 S.I. Jaipal Singh aforesaid in connivance with the defendant No.5 and the plaintiff was put to trial in case FIR No.452/2002; (xv) that vide judgment dated 5th March, 2004, the plaintiff was given benefit of doubt and acquitted; (xvi) that no appeal was preferred against the aforesaid judgment; (xvii) that the plaintiff, on 1st March, 2005 got issued a legal notice claiming compensation and to which a reply dated 11th March, 2005 was given by the defendant No.5. 2. Summons of the suit were issued. Written statement was filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod and at what rate? OPP 3. Whether the acts of the defendants are protected under Section 138 of Delhi Police Act and whether the suit is barred under Section 140 of Delhi Police Act, if so, to what effect? OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties as alleged by the defendants? OPD 5. Relief. 6. The defendants absented at the stage of evidence and were vide order dated 24th November, 2011 proceeded against ex-parte. 7. The plaintiff in his ex-parte evidence, besides examining himself has examined one Mohammad Naqi as PW-2 and closed his evidence. 8. The counsel for the plaintiff took repeated adjournments for addressing ex-parte arguments. When the suit was listed on 18th February, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rving judgment that the suit was prima facie barred by time, the counsel for the plaintiff neither in is written submissions has adverted to the said aspect nor are any of the judgments referred to, on the said aspect. 14. Though undoubtedly neither of the defendants in their respective written statement took the plea, of the suit claim being barred by time, and no issue also was framed to the said effect but Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 mandates that every suit instituted after the expiry of the period prescribed for filing thereof shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence. The suit is clearly for compensation for malicious prosecution and the period of limitation prescribed by Article 74 of the S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll have been filed on or before 6 th May, 2005; but the same as aforesaid, has been filed on 10th May,2005. The suit is thus clearly barred by time and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Perhaps for this reason only, the counsel for the plaintiff in his written submissions has chosen not to deal with the said aspect. The judgments cited are on the quantum of compensation. 16. Though the suit being barred by time, there is no need to deal with the other aspects but I may only add that a perusal of the judgment of acquittal of the plaintiff from a reading thereof, does not show the prosecution of the plaintiff to be malicious. Rather, the plaintiff has been acquitted giving the benefit of doubt and not for the reason of having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
