Delhi High Court
D.C. Sankhla vs Ashok K. Parmar on 24 January, 1995
Equivalent citations: (1995)111PLR68, 1995RLR292
Author: M. Jagannadha Rao
Bench: M.J. Rao, D.K. Jain
JUDGMENT M. Jagannadha Rao, J.
(1) This appeal arises out of the order dt. 6.10.1994 passed by the learned Single Judge on the preliminary issue as to whether the suit is barred by limitaion. No doubt, this appeal itself is filed with an application for condensation of delay u/S. 5 of the Limitation Act, but for deciding the point raised in (he appeal, we are not taking notice of the S. 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 before the concerned officer authorised to receive the plaint on the Original Side of this Court. 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 limitation.
(3) 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 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.
(4) 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 re-presenting the plaint after removing the defects which period he has neither explained, nor has he sought for condensation 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 arc appellants before us, relied upon Rules 1 and 2 of Chapter Iv of Delhi High Court (O.S.) Rules, 1967 framed u/Ss. 122 and 129 of the C.P.C. and S. 7 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966. The relevant rules are : "1.Presentation at the counter-All plaints, applications and documents shall be presented by the plaintiff, at the filing counter. All such documents filed in Court shall be accompanied by an index in duplicate containing their details. The amounts of court fee affixed or paid on any such document shall also be indicated in the index. Sufficient number of copies shall also be filed for service on the opposite party. 2. Endorsement and scrutiny of document (a) The officer in charges of the filing counter shall endorse the date of receipt on the plaint 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 there-after 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."
(5) It will be noticed that neither Rule 1 nor Rule 2 even purports to extend the period of limitation prescribed in the Schedule to the Limitation Act. We need not for the purpose of deciding this appeal go into the question whether in exercise of powers u/Ss. 122 and 129, Civil Procedure Code or S. 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. Counsel for the appellant could not but concede that S. 5 of the Limitation Act did not apply to the filing of the plaints. In fact, that is so elementary to admit of any dubt. Rules 1 and 2 of (O.S.) 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.
(6) We are, therefore, of the view that the learned Single Judge was absolutely right in rejecting the contention of the defendants that the suit was not within time. Appeal dismissed.