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.

ORDER :

J. C. Doshi, J.

1. By way of this petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “the Code”), the petitioner prays to quash and set aside order dated 9.12.2024 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge & JMFC at Vadali, Sabarkantha in Regular Civil Suit No.2 of 2024 below Exh.9 and further be pleased to allow application filed by the petitioner before the learned trial Court under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code and to reject the plaint.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under :-

2.1 The petitioner is defendant, and the respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit, they have filed suit against petitioner for compensation for defamation.

2.2 Present petitioner filed complaint alleged to have been bogus against the plaintiffs u/s 406, 420, 467, 468, 504, 506(2), 114 of the IPC being Criminal Case No.560 of 2018

2.3 The trial Court, after recording evidence acquitted the plaintiffs. Having found acquittal in Criminal Case, the plaintiffs pleaded that malicious prosecution has been launched against them by the petitioner defendant. Thus, the plaintiffs filed suit for compensation of alleged defamation and launch of malicious prosecution.

2.4 The order of acquittal was challenged by the present petitioner before this court by way of filing Criminal Appeal and an application for leave to appeal.

2.5 The application filed by the petitioner for leave to appeal was allowed and appeal against the order of acquittal of the plaintiffs is admitted.

2.6 The suit has been filed on the ground of malicious prosecution on alleged defamation of the plaintiffs.

2.7 The petitioner submitted an application under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 on the grounds that no real cause of action has arisen as well as the suit is time barred.

2.8 Said application filed by the petitioner is dismissed by the learned trial court.

2.9 Hence, present petition.

3. Parties are referred to as per their original status before the lower Court.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. SG Barot for the petitioner. Vide order dated 1.4.2025, learned advocate Mr. Manish Shah had instruction to appear for the respondents. However, today, when the matter is called out, he has chosen not to remain present.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioner would assail the impugned order and submit that the learned trial Court has committed serious error in rejecting the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. He would further submit that the suit is hopelessly time barred, as statement made in the plaint is hit by law of limitation and yet the learned trial Court erroneously declined to hold that the suit is not barred by law of limitation. He would further submit that according to the plaint, the respondents – plaintiffs filed suit for damages of defamation. The defamation according to the plaintiffs took place when Criminal Case No.560 of 2018 for the offences punishable u/s 406, 420, 467, 468, 504, 506(2), 114 of the IPC was falsely registered against the plaintiffs. He would further submit that the process in the criminal case was issued by the JMFC, Vadali and subsequently, framed the charges on 16.10.2019 and therefore, if the charges are framed false against the plaintiffs, the cause of action to file the suit for damages commenced from 16.10.2019. However, the suit was filed subsequent thereto beyond the period of limitation of three y