Lachhi Ram & ors. ...... Petitioners versus Rajinder Kumar ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN ***

Present :- Mr. Akshay Jindal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Yashvardhan Goyal, Advocate Mr. Bhavya Vats, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Shvetanshu Goel, Advocate for the respondent.

(Amicus curiae).

***

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

1 Present revision petition is directed against order dated 28.01.2020 (Annexure P-5) passed by Civil Judge, (Jr. Division), Karnal whereby application filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint stands dismissed. For convenience, parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position in the suit i.e. the petitioners as defendants and the respondent as plaintiff.

2 Petitioners have been arraigned as defendants in a suit for damages filed by the respondent. As per case pleaded in the plaint petitioners are aggrieved of registration of FIR bearing No.123 dated 07.08.2006 registered for offences punishable under Sections 403/406/506 read with Section 120-B IPC which further led to trial. The plaintiff earned acquittal vide judgment dated 02.07.2014. It is not disputed that against the order of acquittal an appeal was preferred which now stands dismissed vide order dated 30.01.2017. The present suit was instituted on 04.02.2018.

3 Defendants moved present application seeking rejection of plaint claiming that the suit having been filed seeking damages on account of malicious prosecution would be governed by Article 74 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, ‘the 1963 Act’). From the bare perusal of the plaint, it is evident that the suit is barred by time and the same thus deserves to be rejected at the threshold.

4 The application stands rejected by the Trial Court holding that the limitation is a mixed question of law and fact which cannot be adjudicated without evidence. Trial Court accordingly dismissed the application filed by the defendants-petitioners.

5 Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has assailed the order passed by the Trial Court. He submits that the plaintiff himself in the plaint pleaded that the cause of action accrued in his favour in the year 2006. That being so, under Article 74 of the 1963 Act, the limitation prescribed to file the suit is one year from the date when the plaintiff is acquitted or when the prosecution is otherwise terminated. In the present case the plaintiff having been acquitted vide judgment dated 02.07.2014 present suit instituted on 04.02.2018 is barred by law of limitation and would be thus liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

6 Per contra, Shvetanshu Goel, Advocate (Amicus curiae), submits that it not being a case seeking damages for malicious prosecution would be governed by Article 113 of the 1963 Act, the limitation for which would be three years. The same shall commence from the date when the right to sue accrued. He submits that it is an admitted fact on record that after the plaintiff earned acquittal defendants preferred appeal against the same. The same was dismissed only on 30.01.2017. Appeal being continuation of the trial proceedings, the limitation shall commence from the date of decision of the appeal as the right to sue in favour of the plaintiff accrued only on 30.01.2017 and not prior thereto as the Court was already seized of the matter. In support of his contention, he relies upon judgments passed in P.Kumarrakurubaran Vs. P.Narayanan & ors. 2025 (2) RCR (Civil) 758, Malluru Mallappa (D) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Kuruvathappa & ors., 2020 AIR (SC) 925, West Bengal State Electricity Board Vs. Dilip Kumar Ray (2007) 14 Supreme Court Cases 568 and Akhtari BI (Smt) Vs. State of M.P. (2001) 4 Supreme Court Cases 355.

7 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

8 In order to appreciate the rival contentions raised by the parties, it will be apt to peruse the relevant pleadings raised in the plaint which are culled out as under :-

“5. That by hat