1S/L.29 25.01.2018 Court No.16 SD FA 345 of 2007 With CAN 8869 of 2007 Citi Bank N.A.
-versus- Sapnamoy Banerjee & Anr.
Mr. Prabhat Srivastava Mr. Ratul Das for the appellant.
Mr. Shyamal Kumar Sanyal Mr. Sumanta Chakraborty Mr. Somnath Banerjee Mr. Amit Choudhury for the opposite parties.
A frivolous objection has been taken on behalf of the first respondent- plaintiff, questioning the propriety of the appeal being entertained more than a decade after the appeal was filed. The first respondent says that the appeal from a decree passed by the City Civil Court should have been carried to this court within 30 days.
It appears from the papers, including the certified copy of the judgment and decree and the original presentation form, that the application for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and decree of November 17, 2004 was made on December 8, 2004; that it was notified for affixation of stamp on February 21, 2005; that appropriate stamp was affixed on the same date; and, that the certified copy was made available for collection on February 28, 2005. The 2appeal was filed in this Court on March 2, 2005. Notwithstanding the delay of about 20 days or so in applying for the certified copy of the judgment and decree, the appeal was filed within the period of 30 days and there was nothing improper in the appeal being entertained.
It is ironical that the issue of limitation has been raised since the suit for defamation was ex facie barred by limitation and plain to see from paragraph 5 of the plaint. Paragraph 5 of the plaint has pleaded as follows:-
That the cause of action arose on or about April, 1999 when contract of credit card was made and subsequently when on 14.12.2000 when international credit Card was issued and on 14th October, 2001 when the plaintiff was denied his credit card user and demand and maligned and on 4.5.2002 when Defendant from the further exonerated his liability with manifestly defamed & slander and on 13.7.2002 when notice was served and the same arose at 19/B, J.L. Nehru Road, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, Previously known P.S.-Park St. Kolkata 700087 and also at Kanak Building, 41, Chowringhee Road, P.S. Shakespear Sarani, Calcutta 700071 and the same is continuing.
Thus, the act of defamation by declining the use of the credit card took place on October 14, 2001. The suit was filed in 2003.
Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 obliges every Court to ascertain first whether the claim can be pursued, whether or not a defence of limitation is taken. It was, thus, incumbent on the trial court to assess such aspect before proceeding with the suit and needlessly wasting courts time. The period prescribed for limitation for defamation or libel is one year from the date of the action or the publication. Since the act of defamation in this case was on October 14, 2001 the suit could have been filed within a year thereof. Since the 3suit was filed sometime in 2003, the first respondent-plaintiff could not have pursued the action or obtained the relief.
Articles 75 and 76 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act prescribe a period of one year from when the libel is published and when the words are spoken or when the special damage complained of results. In the present case, the date has to be taken when the credit card was dishonoured. This happened on October 14, 2001.
Accordingly, FA 345 of 2007 is allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree dated November 17, 2004 and by dismissing the Money Suit No.39 of 2003 as being ex facie barred by limitation. The plaintiff will pay costs assessed at Rs.5,000/-.
The decretal amount deposited will be immediately refunded by the Registrar General to the appellant together with all the interest that is accrued thereon, less the usual costs and charges of the Registrar.
Re: CAN 8869 of 2007 In view of the above order, CAN 8869 of 2007 is also disposed of.
(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)