2007 PLP 1821 (CLC)

NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.

By filing of application under Order VII, rule, 11, C.P.C. the defendant has prayed for refection of plaint. The ground taken in the application are that the suit is barred by res judicata, the suit is hopelessly barred by time, the claim of damages cannot be awarded under the law and that the plaintiff was acquitted by the Court on the basis of compromise and payment of compensation to legal heirs of deceased girl. The plaintiff has filed counter-affidavit to the application. In the counter-affidavit the plaintiff submits that the suit is within time and the suit was filed within three years of the judgment, dated 16-6-2001 of the accident case passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur. The plaintiff further submits that the 1st Additional Sessions Judge has decided the case on merits. The facts of the case are that on 7-12-1995, when the plaintiff was on duty driving the vehicle belongs to defendant met with an accident and a girl namely Miss Shazia was killed. The plaintiff was challaned in case No.66 of 1996 and was acquitted by extending benefit of doubt by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur vide judgment, dated 16-6-2001. Before his acquittal plaintiff was dismissed from service on 24-6-1996, which order was challenged before the Federal Service Tribunal, who reinstated the plaintiff vide order dated 31-5-2003 without back-benefits. The plaintiff challenged the order of Service Tribunal before the Honourable Supreme Court by way of filing C.P.L.A., in which the leave was refused. The plaintiff has prayed compensation on the following accounts:-- (i) Advocate tees and, related expenses Rs.50,000 (ii) Bail and Miscellaneous police expenses Rs.50,000 (iii) Conveyance expenses from Karachi to Shikarpur at least 120 hearings from 1996-2001 @ Rs.2,000 per hearing Rs.2,40,000 (iv) Compensation paid to legal heirs of deceased girl Rs.5,00,000 (v) Compensation due to injury caused to the plaintiff Rs.2,00,000 (vi) Damages for not arranging the bail of the plaintiff Rs.5,00,000 (Vii) Damages due to incapacitation of the son for want of proper care and treatment due to mental pressure and tension of the accident case Rs.25,00,000 (viii) Damages for mental torture, harassment, tension, pains and agonies for 5 and half years Rs.15,00,000 (ix) Damages for loss of reputation Rs.5,00,000 Total Rs.60,40,000 In para.12 of the plaint the plaintiff submits that the cause of action for filing of the suit accrued on 21-6-2001 when he was acquitted by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur and' thereafter when the .Federal Services Tribunal held that accident took place due to mechanical defects in the vehicle and is still continuing. The learned counsel for the defendant submits that the suit is hopelessly time-barred. He submits that under Article 19 of the Limitation Act the limitation for filing the suit for compensation for false imprisonment is one year from the day when imprisonment ends. He further submits that under Article 23 of Limitation Act the limitation for filing of the suit for compensation for malicious prosecution is one year from the date when the plaintiff was acquitted or prosecution was terminated. He submits .that the plaintiff was acquitted by extending benefit of doubt on 16-6-2001 on payment of compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased as such is not entitled to claim of compensation. He also referred Article 22 of the Limitation Act, which provides that suit for compensation for any other injury to the person can be filed within a period of one year from the date when the injury was committed. He submits that in this case the cause of action accrued when the plaintiff was dismissed from his services on 24-6-1996, acquitted on basis of benefit of doubt on 21-6-2001 and reinstated by the Service Tribunal on 31-5-2003 and the C.P. L. A. was refused on 25-11-2003. The learned counsel for the defendant has relied upon the following reported cases:-- (i) Abdul Majid Butt v. United Chemicals Ltd. PLD 1`970 Lah. 298, (ii) Kayumraz v. Messrs Mohammedi Tramway Company, Karachi PLD 1968 Kar. 376 and (iii) Abdulla Mahomed Jabli v. Abdulla Mahomed Zulaikhi AIR 1964 Pat.

372. The plaintiff has claimed compensation on account of malicious prosecution, illegal dismissal from service, mental torture and incapacitation of son. For all above acts the limitation for filing the suit is one year in terms of Articles 19, 22 and 23 of the first Schedule of the limitation Act. The suit was filed on 11-6-2004 after one year of limitation without filing application for condonation of delay. The plaint can be rejected under clause (d) of Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. where the suit appears to be prima facie barred by any law from perusal of statement in the plaint and no enquiry is needed. The question of limitation is always not a mixed question of law and facts and where the question of limitation is apparent on the face of record the Court can proceed without any further enquiry. Matters of limitation cannot be left to pleadings of the parties, but a duty was imposed on Court to notice the point of limitation, whether the plea of limitation was raised or not. In this case admittedly the cause of action to the plaintiff accrued on 21-6-2001 when the .plaintiff was acquitted and on 31-5-2003 when the Service Tribunal has reinstated him. The suit can be filed within one year from the above mentioned dates. The plaintiff has not filed any application for condonation of delay, but in his counter-affidavit states that the suit was filed within three years of the judgment dated 16-6-2001 of the accident case passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur. From the statement of the plaintiff in para.l2 of the plaint it is apparent that the suit is prima facie barred by limitation provided under Articles 19, 22 and 23 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act. The plaint is therefore rejected under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. with no order as to cost. M.H./M-126/K Plaint rejected.