NAVIN CHAWLA
Ved Parkash Yadav – Appellant
Versus
RWA Krishna Apartment – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Navin Chawla, J.
I.A. 12140/2022
1. This application has been filed by the defendant nos. 15 and 16 under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in short, ‘CPC’), claiming dismissal of the suit.
2. Relying upon Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (in short, ‘the Delhi Police Act’) it is claimed that as the suit has been filed beyond the period prescribed therein, the suit is liable to be dismissed. In support, reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the defendant nos. 15 and 16 on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sumer Chand v. Union of India (UOI), (1994) 1 SCC 64 : AIR 1993 SC 2579, to submit that as the registration of the FIR, which has been made the cause of action for filing of the present suit by the plaintiff, is a step taken in discharge of duty, the suit for malicious prosecution could have been instituted only within three months from the date of the act complained of. It is further submitted that as far as the defamation is concerned, the Suit could have been filed only within a period of three months from the date of the filing of the Charge-Sheet. In the present case, the FIR was registered on 06.08.2011.; the first Supplement
Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd.
Hari Steel and General Industries Limited v. Daljit Singh
Karam Kapahi v. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust [(2010) 4 SCC 753 : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 262]
Sumer Chand v. Union of India (UOI)
Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India [(2000) 7 SCC 120]
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.