ORDER :

1. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 01.05.2018 in I.A.No.969 of 2017 in O.S.No.452 of 2016, on the file of the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein (defendant) under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC seeking rejection of plaint, was dismissed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent despite service of notice. Perused the record.

3. The revision petitioner is defendant in a suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff in O.S.No.452 of 2016 for malicious prosecution. It is alleged by the respondent in the suit that the petitioner filed a complaint against her under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.135 of 2011, on the file of the XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and the same ended in acquittal on 17.02.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Crl.A.No.276 of 2012 before the VII-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally and the same was dismissed by judgment dated 18.09.2015 and the respondent-plaintiff was acquitted. It is stated in the complaint that the respondent hails from a reputed family in Hyderabad. The respondent alleged that the petitioner herein filed false criminal cases, apart from filing civil suits for recovery of money. The petitioner made the respondent to appear before the Court on several adjournments and she suffered mental agony and incurred huge monetary loss and as such, she claimed an Rs.10 lakhs for damages and compensation from the petitioner herein for malicious prosecution.

4. On appearance, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.969 of 2017 under Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC for rejection of plaint filed by the respondent-plaintiff in O.S.No.452 of 2016 stating that there are no merits in the contention of the respondent-plaintiff and the appeal filed against the order of acquittal is pending and the suit for compensation for malicious will remain stayed till the appeal filed by her against the order of acquittal is disposed of by the appellate Court. From the averments of the plaint, the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff is barred by law, as the judgment of the trial court dated 17.02.2012 is on merits and the suit is filed on 26.06.2016. The limitation has to be computed from the date of the order i.e., 17.02.2012 and mere filing of the appeal cannot affect the original acquittal recorded and it cannot, therefore, suspend the period of limitation.

5. The respondent resisted the petition stating that the cause of action for filing the suit arose on 30.10.2015, the date of dismissal of Crl.A.No.276 of 2012 by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and the date when the respondent-plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 30.10.2015. The limitation is calculated from the date when the appeal was disposed of, but not from the date of original judgment dated 17.02.2012 in C.C.No.135 of 2011. After calculating the limitation period, the suit is filed within limitation as per law and it is not barred by limitation and prayed to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner for rejection of the plaint.

6. On a consideration of the material on record and by relying on the decision of this Court in Subramanyam’s case (infra), the trial Court dismissed I.A.No.969 of 2017 holding that the period of limitation for filing the suit has to be counted from 18.09.2015 and, therefore, the suit which is filed on 26.02.2016 is within a period of one year from that date, and as such it cannot be said at that stage that the suit is barred by limitation and that the aspect of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law which has to be adjudicated during the course of trial.

7. Mr.Vedula Srinivas, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that as per Article 74 of the Limitation Act of 1963, Schedule I prescribes one year of limitation fo