- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
D.C Sankhal v. Ashok Kumar Parmar .
Factual and Procedural Background
The first respondent filed a suit for recovery of damages for libel, alleging that defamatory insinuations were published in a newspaper on 11.9.1986. The plaint was prepared on 10.9.1987 and presented before the authorized officer on the Original Side of the Court. The suit was treated as governed by Article 75 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, which requires filing within one year from the date of publication. Although the plaint was initially presented within the limitation period, it was found defective on three counts relating to court fee stamp, attestation of documents, and translation of a Hindi document. Consequently, the plaint was returned for rectification on 15.9.1987, refiled on 16.10.1987, again returned on 17.10.1987 for non-removal of the third objection, and finally refiled on the same day. Summons were then issued to the defendants.
The defendants contended that the initial presentation was defective and that the effective filing date should be 17.10.1987, after removal of defects. The learned Single Judge rejected this contention, holding the suit was within time. This appeal challenges that order dated 6.10.1994 on the preliminary issue of limitation.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the initial presentation of a plaint with defects constitutes valid filing for the purpose of limitation under Article 75 of the Limitation Act.
- Whether the refiling of the plaint after rectification of defects should be treated as the effective date of filing, thereby affecting limitation.
- Whether Rules 1 and 2 of Chapter IV of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1967, empower the Court to extend or alter the limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Act.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The initial presentation of the plaint on 10.9.1987 was defective due to missing court fee stamp, unattested photocopies, and lack of translation for a Hindi document.
- The plaintiff delayed in removing these defects without explanation or seeking condonation of delay.
- Therefore, the plaint should be treated as filed only on 17.10.1987, when all defects were removed.
- Reliance was placed on Rules 1 and 2 of Chapter IV of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1967, which regulate presentation, scrutiny, and return of defective documents.
Respondent's Arguments
- This information was not available in the provided opinion.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed the limitation period prescribed under Article 75 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, which requires filing within one year from the date of publication of the libel. The Court observed that the initial presentation of the plaint, even though defective, was within the prescribed limitation period. It noted that Rules 1 and 2 of Chapter IV of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1967, which govern presentation and scrutiny of plaints, do not extend or alter the limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Act.
The Court declined to consider whether the subordinate legislation could extend limitation periods since the rules themselves contain no such provision. It emphasized that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows condonation of delay, does not apply to the filing of plaints in this context. Consequently, the Court held that the date of initial presentation, despite defects, is the relevant date for limitation purposes, not the date of refiling after removal of defects.
On this basis, the Court upheld the learned Single Judge's decision that the suit was filed within time.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED
The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the suit was filed within the limitation period as per Article 75 of the Limitation Act. The decision clarifies that procedural rules for presentation and scrutiny of plaints do not affect the limitation period prescribed by statute. No new precedent was established beyond the direct effect on the parties that the initial presentation date governs limitation, notwithstanding defects later rectified.
Jagannadha Rao, C.J:— This appeal arises out of the order dated 6.10.1994 passed by the learned Single Judge on the preliminary issue as to whether the suit is barred by limitation. No doubt, this appeal itself is filed with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, but for the purpose of deciding the point raised in the appeal, we are not taking notice of the Section 5 application.
2. The first respondent filed a suit for recovery of damages for the tort of libel. The alleged insinuation is said to have been made on 11.9.1986 in a newspaper. The plaint was prepared on 10.9.1987 and was presented the before the concerned officer authorised to receive the plaint on the Original Side of this Court.
3. The suit was, therefore, treated as a suit coming within Article 75 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. The said Article 75 says that the suit has to be filed within one year from the date when the libel is published. The presentation of the plaint is, therefore, clearly within the time of limitation prescribed by Article 75 of Schedule to the Limitation Act.
4. The point, however, raised before the learned Single Judge was that after the plaint was presented it was found to be defective on three counts — (i) the certified copy of the order accompanying plaint did not bear the Court fee stamp of 75 paise; (ii) photo copies of the documents accompanying the plaint were not attested as true copies; (iii) the photo copy of a document was in Hindi and it was neither accompanied by translation in English nor the translation charges were paid. Therefore, the plaint was returned to the plaintiff on 15.9.1987 for rectifying the objections. It was, however, refiled on 16.10.1987 On 17.10.1987 the Registry returned the plaint pointing out that objection No. 3 was not removed. Thereafter, the plaint was refiled on the same day and was directed to be listed before the Registrar for hearing on admission on 29.10.1987 Thereafter, summons were directed to be issued to the defendants.
5. The defendants contended before the learned Single Judge that the initial presentation of the plaint on 10.9.1987 was defective and the plaintiff consumed unnecessary time in representing the plaint, after removing the defects which period he has neither explained, nor has he sought for condonation of the same and, therefore, the plaint must be treated as filed only on 17.10.1987 when the third objection pointed out by the Registry was removed. The defendants, who are appellants before us, relied upon Rules 1 and 2 of Chapter IV of Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1967 framed in exercise of powers conferred by Sections 122 and 129 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 7 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966. The relevant Rules 1 and 2 reads as under:—
“1. Presentation at the counter:—
All plaints, petitions, applications and documents including application for leave to sue in forma pauperis shall be presented by the plaintiff, petitioner, applicant, defendant or respondent in person or by his duly authorised agent or by an Advocate duly appointed by him for the purpose, at the filing counter. All such documents filed in the Court shall be accompanied by an index in duplicate containing their details the amounts of Court fee affixed or paid on any such documents shall also be indicated in the index. Sufficient number of copies of the plaint, petition or application shall also be filed for service on the opposite party.
2. Endorsement and scrutiny of document—
(a) The officer in charge of the filing counter shall endorse the date of receipt on the plaint, petition, application, or proceedings and also on the duplicate copy of the index and return the same to the party. He shall enter the particulars of all such documents in the register of daily filing and thereafter cause it to be sent to the office concerned for examination. If on scrutiny, the document is found to be defective, such document shall after notice to the party filing the same, be placed before the Registrar. The Registrar may for sufficient cause return the said document for rectification or amendment to the party filing the same, and for this purpose may allow to the party concerned such reasonable time as he may consider necessary.
(b) Where the party fails to take any step for the removal of the defect within the time fixed for the same, the Registrar may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, decline to register the document.
(c) Any party aggrieved by any order made by the Registrar under this rule may, within fifteen days of the making of such order, appeal against it to the Judge in Chambers.”
6. It will be noticed that neither Rule 1 nor Rule 2 even purports to extend the period of limitation prescribed in the Schedules to the Limitation Act. We need not for the purpose of deciding this appeal go into the question whether in exercise of powers under Sections 122 and 129 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 7 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, this Court will have the power to pass subordinate legislation extending the period of limitation prescribed by the various Articles in the Schedule to the Limitation Act. This is because we do not even find in Rules i.e the subordinate legislation any provision purporting to extend the period of limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act, 1963. Learned Counsel for the appellant could not but concede that Section 5 of the Limitation Act did not apply to the filing of the plaints. In fact that is so elementary to admit of any doubt. Rules 1 and 2 of Chapter IV of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1967, extracted above, do not even remotely suggest that the refiling of the plaint after removal of the defects as the effective date of the filing of the plaint for purposes of limitation. The date on which the plaint is presented, even with defects, would, therefore, have to be the date for the purpose of the Limitation Act.
7. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned Single Judge was absolutely right in rejecting the contention of the appellant and other defendants that the suit was not within time and in holding that the suit was within time. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
8. Appeal dismissed.
Alert