Mr. Darshan Singh, J.:- The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-defendants against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Barnala, whereby the appeal filed by them against the judgment and decree dated 11.06.2012 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala has been dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties shall be mentioned as per their status in the original suit.

3. Plaintiff-respondent Harpal Singh filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of damages on the allegations that on 04.02.2001 at about 01:00 pm, the appellants caused him injuries with their respective weapons. FIR No.32 dated 05.02.2001 under sections 307/324/323/34 IPC was registered against the appellants-defendants and they faced the trial. The plaintiff-respondent was shifted to DMC Hospital, Ludhiana. He incurred the expenses to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. He remained confined to bed for about one year and was unable to do his work during that period and suffered the loss of earning to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. He also suffered the pain and agony to the extent of Rs.20,000/-. He also spent Rs.30,000/- on diet etc. Hence the suit for grant of compensation/damages to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-.

4. The appellants-defendants contested the suit on the grounds inter alia that no such occurrence has taken place on 04.02.2001 as alleged by the plaintiff. The defendants were also not armed with any weapon nor they caused any injuries to the plaintiff as alleged by him. The plaintiff and Gurbachan Singh has obtained the medical reports on the basis of self-suffered injuries. False criminal case has been got registered against them. They also denied that plaintiff remained admitted in DMC, Ludhiana. Finally they pleaded that plaintiff is not entitled for any damages and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trail Court vide order dated 11.06.2004 :-

1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount from defendant? OPP

2. Whether suit of plaintiff is within limitation? OPP

3. Whether suit is false and frivolous? OPD

4. Relief.

6. On appreciation of evidence and material on record, the learned trial Court held that plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.65,000/- as damages from the appellants-defendants.

7. The appellants-defendants preferred the appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree which was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Barnala vide impugned judgment and decree dated 18.12.2012. Hence, this regular second appeal.

8. I have heard Mr. Sarwinder Goyal, Advocate, learned counsel for appellants, Mr. D.S. Malwai, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent and have carefully gone through the paper-book and record of the case.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was time barred. The alleged occurrence has taken place on 04.02.2001 but the suit was filed on 10.04.2004. He further contended that the plaintiff-respondent has not examined any doctor from whom he had received the treatment. The name of the doctor is also not mentioned on any bill. He further contended that the appeal against the conviction is still pending before this Court. Thus, the conviction of the appellants has not become final. He contended that in fact no such occurrence has taken place nor the appellants have caused any injuries to the plaintiff-respondent. A false case was got registered against the appellants by the plaintiff by manipulating the false medical reports. Thus, he contended that the impugned judgment and decree are not sustainable.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent contended that earlier the plaintiff has filed the application seeking permission to file the suit as indigent person. The said application was filed on 12.10.2001. As