RFA 916/2019 Page 1 of 7

$~23

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

RFA 916/2019

RAJVIR TYAGI

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. Abhinav Bajaj and Mr.

Saksham Ojha, Advs.

versus

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Divyan Nandrajog, Adv.

with Inspector Vijay Kumar, SHO, P.S. S.B.

Dairy, SI Sunil Kumar, Todapur Traffic, SI

Suman, SHO, P.S. Civil Lines, ASI Sanjay

Pal Singh, Special Cell, South Western

Range, Janakpuri, ASI SAtrujeet, P.S.

Modal Town, ASI Gajraj Singh, P.S. Seema

Puri, ASI Bal Hussain, P.S. Kashmere Gate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

%

25.07.2022

1.

The order, dated 27^th July 2019, passed by the learned

Additional District Judge (hereinafter “the learned ADJ”) in CS

297/2018, under challenge in this appeal under Section 96 of the Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “CPC”), reads thus:

“CS No. 297/2018

Rajvir Tyagi Vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors.

27.07.2019

Present:

Sh. Mohd. Iqbal, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.

Ms. Arpita, Ld. Counsel for defendant.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002828

RFA 916/2019 Page 2 of 7

Inspector Vijay Kumar, ATO, Sadar Bazar

ASI Bal Hussain, No.517/N, PS-Kashmiri Gate.

HC Sanjay, No.-232/Special Cell.

HC Shatrujeet, No.-886/C, PS-IP Estate.

ASI Sunil Kumar, No. 3253/D, Kalyanpuri

Traffic Circle.

Replication on behalf of the plaintiff filed, same is

taken on record.

At this juncture, one preliminary issue is framed as

under:

“Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred

buy limitation?”

Arguments on preliminary issue heard.

It is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that they have

served a notice upon all the defendants prior to filing the

present suit in the year 03.07.2017 and secondly on

20.11.2017. It is stated that cause of action for filing the

present suit starts thereafter and the suit has been filed within

a year. It is further stated that the suit is very much within the

period of limitation.

Ld. Counsel for the defendant, on the other hand has

stated that impugned judgment is dated 28.10.2016, vide

which plaintiff, who was also one of the accused along with

other accused persons have been acquitted and as per

Limitation Act, suit for malicious prosecution should be filed

within one year. However, the present suit has been filed on

22.01.2018.

Heard. Record perused.

As per Article 74 Part 7 of Schedule to the Limitation

Act, 1963, it is mentioned that the limitation period for filing

a suit for damages for malicious prosecution is one year from

the date when plaintiff is acquitted or the prosecution is

otherwise terminated. In the present case the plaintiff herein

along with other accused persons was acquitted on

28.10.2016, this fact is not disputed.

Further, as per Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002828

RFA 916/2019 Page 3 of 7

the onus to show that the suit is within the period of limitation

is always upon the plaintiff. Also, Section 5 of the Limitation

Act, says that in a suit delay in filing, cannot be condoned, as

per law.

Apart from the above, Section 9 of the CPC further

shows that once the limitation period starts running, it cannot

be stopped by subsequent disability unless and until

mentioned in the act itself.

Thus, on joint reading of the above facts and

provisions it reflects that the limitation period in the present

case has started after 28.10.2016. The limitation period for

filing the suit for malicious prosecution, therefore, is that it

can be filed within one year i.e. till 28.10.2017. The present

suit, howe