Suit rejected being barred by limitation.

1. The prayer in the Suit is for compensation of a sum of Rs.55,00,000/- in respect of the proceedings taken against the plaintiff in the Criminal Court, resulting in acquittal.

2. The Suit is opposed by the respondents herein on the ground that the filing of the Suit is barred by limitation as per Article 74 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes only one year limitation from the date of acquittal.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the Suit are as follows: The plaintiff is working as a selection grade lecturer in the Department of Commerce in Quaide Milleth College, Medavakkam, Chennai and the defendants are also working in the same college. It is stated that the plaintiff along with 20 other staff members of the college were prosecuted in two Criminal Complaints preferred by the defendants before the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, Chennai, which were taken up on file in C.C. No.144 of 2001 and 147 of 2001 respectively. The plaintiff was impleaded as 18th accused in both the Complaints. Ultimately, by order-dated 17. 2005, the Complaints were rejected and the plaintiff was acquitted. The plaintiff submits that he was forced to spend his valuable time in attending the Court. The appearance of the plaintiff as an accused in the Criminal Court not only damaged his reputation in the mind of others including his friends, students and relatives but also caused him mental agony and suffering. It is stated in paragraph 8 of the plaint that the complaints against the plaintiff were vexatious, motivated and deliberate. In the above circumstances, he issued a notice to the defendants on 21. 2007 calling upon them to pay compensation at Rs.20,00,000/-, which was received by the 1st defendant on 2. 2007. The postal department returned the notice addressed to the second defendant with an endorsement stating that there is no such person. It is stated in the background of the proceedings taken against him before the Criminal Court, the petitioner values the claim for damages at Rs.20,00,000/-, however he restricts the claim to Rs.5,50,000/-as against each defendant. The cause of action is stated to have arisen at Perambur, Chennai within the jurisdiction of this Court, when the plaintiff facing the, prosecution, suffered mental agony apart from physical and monetary lo till the judgment was rendered on 17. 2005. Hence the plaintiff has to be compensated for damages.

4. The Suit is sought to be resisted by the defendants herein saying the very averments of the plaintiff for the claim is barred by limitation as Article 74 of the Limitation Act. Leaving aside for a moment the Criminal Revision filed by the defendants before the Court, the contentions of defendants is that under the provisions of the Limitation Act, the Plaint is maintainable as the Suit has been filed after a period of one year.

5. The plaintiff has filed a counter to this allegation stating that as per Article 137 in third division of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation is 3 years for filing a Suit. The cause of action had arisen merely on the malicious prosecution because of the tortuous act in making Complaints against this plaintiff. He places reliance on the following decisions of the Supreme Court

.(i) Mayar (H.K.) Ltd & Ors. v. Owners and Parties, Vessel M .V. Fortune Express & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 1828;

.(ii) Balasaria Construction (P) Ltd v. Hanuman Seva Trust and others, 2006 (5) SCC 658;

(iii) Elmano Menino Dias v. The Archbishop, Archdiocese of Goa & Daman & Ors., AIR 2007 (NOC) 1637 (Bom.);

and submitted that considering the questions of fact and law raised it is not per in this case for considering the question of limitation at this stage elf. In the above circumstances, the plaintiff prays for the rejection of the Application made by the defendants.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendants placed reliance on the decision in the case of Madho Lal v. Hari Shanker and another, AIR 1963 All. 547, and submitted that the very av