( 1 ) THIS order would decide the following preliminary issue :

"whether the suit is barred by Umitation ?"

( 2 ) THE suit is for recovery of damages for the tort of libel. The alleged insinuation is said to have been made on 11-9-1986 in a newspaper. The plaint was prepared on 10-9-1987 and presented before the officer authorised to reccivc the plaint on the same day. The relevant office noting arc illegible to a large extent. However, whatever can be ascertain is briefly stated hereinafter.

( 3 ) THE office found the presentation of the plaint to be defective on three counts : (i) the certified copy of the order accompanying the plaint did not bear the court fee stamp of 75 paise (ii) photo copies of documents accompanying the plaint were not attested as true copies (iii) a photo copy of the document was in Hindi and was not accompanied by transition in English nor the translation charges were paid.

( 4 ) ON 15-9-1987. the plaint was returned to the plaintiff for rectifying the objections. It appears to have been represented on 16-10-1987. On 17-10-1987 the office again returned the plaint pointing out objection No. 3 having not been removed. The plaint was represented