IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
Dr. Kunal Saha — Appellant
Versus
The State Of West Bengal And Another — Respondent
I.A. G.A. No. 5 of 2019 (Old No. G.A. 2788 of 2019) and C.S. No. 293 of 2017
Decided on : 04-04-2022
Limitation Act, 1963 - Delay in filing suit - Judges Protection Act, 1985 - Lack of cause of action - Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC - [DELAY IN FILING SUIT] - [JUDGES PROTECTION ACT] - [Limitation Act, 1963]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a decree of Rs. 100 Crore against the State of West Bengal for vicarious liability for an alleged act of defamation committed by a High Court Judge. The State filed an application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, citing delay in filing the suit, lack of cause of action, and bar under the Judges Protection Act, 1985.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was inherently barred under the Limitation Act, 1963 due to an admitted delay of 1964 days in filing the suit. The court also held that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action against the State, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate how the State was responsible for the actions of the High Court Judge. The court further noted that the Judges Protection Act, 1985 provided immunity to judges acting in their judicial capacity, and there was no obligation on the State to take action against a judge for an order passed in a judicial capacity.
Issues: The issues involved the delay in filing the suit, lack of cause of action against the State, and the bar under the Judges Protection Act, 1985.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and held that the suit was inherently barred under the Limitation Act, 1963 due to the admitted delay in filing. The court also emphasized that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action against the State, and there was no legal obligation on the State to take action against a judge for an order passed in a judicial capacity.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 and dismissed the suit.
ORDER
Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
The instant suit was instituted by the plaintiff for seeking a decree to the tune of Rs. 100 Crore against the defendant, that is, the State of West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as "the State"), on account of vicarious liability for an alleged act of defamation committed by a Hon'ble High Court Judge. The present application is on behalf of the State for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. A chronological history of the events that are relevant for settlement of this instant application is given below:
b. In 1999, the plaintiff filed OP No. 240 of 1999 before the National Consumer Redressal Commission, New Delhi against 19 persons who had rendered medical treatment to Mrs. Saha, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 77,76,73,500/- with interest; the same was dismissed in the year 2006. The plaintiff also filed a complaint against 3 Doctors namely Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, Dr. Baidyanath Haider, and Dr. Abani Roy before the West Bengal Medical Council which was later dismissed. Another complaint was filed by the complaint against Breach Candy Hospital, Mumbai and one doctor named Dr. Udwadia before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. This complaint was subsequently withdrawn by the plaintiff.
c. On May 29, 2002, the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore passed a judgment in Case No. C-3883 of 1998 convicting Dr.Sukumar Mukherjee and Dr. Baidyanath Haider under Section-304A of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted Dr. Abani Roy. The convicted doctors preferred a criminal appeal being Criminal Appeal no. 55 of 2002 and Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2002 before the Learned District and Sessions Judge at Alipore against the said judgment. Mr. Ganguly filed a criminal revision application being CRR No. 1856 of 2002 for enhancement of punishment of the convicted doctors, and a criminal revision application being CRA No. 295 of 2002 before this Hon'ble Court, questioning the legality of the judgment with respect to acquittal of Dr. Abani Roy.
d. The Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta transferred Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2002 and Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2002 to itself and heard the said criminal appeals and said criminal revision petitions together, renumbered as CRA No. 295 of 2002 and CRR No. 1856 of 2002. On March 19, 2004, the then Hon'ble Justice Gora Chand Dey passed the judgment in the said matters wherein the convicted doctors were acquitted, the acquittal of Dr. Roy was upheld and some observations against the plaintiff were made. The said judgment was widely shown in the media.
e. Mr. Ganguly challenged the said judgment in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1191-1194 of 2005. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the criminal appeals. The judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on August 7, 2009 in Malay Kumar Gaguly -v- Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and Others with Kunal Saha (Dr.) -v- Dr. Sukutnar Mukherjee and Others reported in (2009) 9 SCC 221.
f. In August, 2011, the plaintiff herein filed a complaint against the Hon'ble Justice Gora Chand Dey (retired), being Case No. C/9928 of 2011 under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code before the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate which was dismissed on August 16, 2011. The plaintiff had also filed CRR No. 2755 of 2011 (Kunal Saha vs Mr. Gora Chand Dey Justice (Retired) and Anr.) in the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta which was dismissed without costs by a judgment dated September 29, 2012 passed by the Hon'ble Justi
Kotecha Property -v- State Bank of India Staff Association
Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur -v- Miss. Priya Soloman
P.V. Guru Raj Reddy and Ors -v- P. Neeradha Reddy and Ors
Popat and Kotecha Property -v- State Bank of India Staff Association
Popat Bahiru Govardhane & Others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC if it is inherently barred under the Limitation Act, 1963 and if the plaint does not discl....
A cause of action based on an approved bill resets limitation; rejection of plaint under Rule 11 is unwarranted where factual disputes exist.
Defamation suit for libel time-barred beyond one year from publication; receipt of exoneration reports does not extend limitation. Plaint rejectable under Order VII Rule 11(d) if averments disclose l....
Plaintiffs' suit for malicious prosecution was timely filed within the limitation period post-acquittal, establishing a clear cause of action despite defendant's claims of frivolity.
Judicial comments made during court proceedings are protected under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985; defamation claims against judges require scrutiny of official duties' nexus.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.