JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. At the time of admission, the following substantial question of law was formulated:

"Whether the interpretation of the first appellate court in para 19 of the said judgment is tenable in law inasmuch as the effect of Section 12(4) of the Limitation Act, 1963 was not at all considered?"

3. The solitary issue involved in this second appeal is that, whether the institution of the suit for malicious prosecution by the appellate court is time barred? Both the courts below held that the suit instituted by the appellant is time barred.

4. The short facts are that, the respondent no.1 has filed a criminal case against the present appellant. The prosecution was carried on and the appellant was found to be acquitted. The judgment and order of acquittal was passed on 23.04.2014. Thereafter, the appellant had instituted a suit for malicious prosecution and for damage. From the order of the trial court, it is apparent that the suit was instituted on 23.6.2015. However, the suit was proceeded to be carried on. At the time of hearing, the matter