Delhi District Court
Ex- Surgen Commander vs Devender Singh (Dhc) on 10 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARVINDER SINGH JOHAL:
DISTRICT JUDGE-02 & WAQF TRIBUNAL :
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI
CS No. 56129/2016
CNR NO. DLND01-000014-2007
IN THE MATTER OF:
Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy
S/o Late Col. Nirmal Chandra Roy,
162/94-A, Lake Gardens,
Kolkata-700045 ( West Bengal)
....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Shri Devender Singh
Advocate, Supreme Court
No. 430, New Lawyers' Chambers
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi-110001. ....DEFENDANT
DATE OF INSTITUTION OF SUIT : 29.05.2007
DATE OF ARGUMENTS : 31.05.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 10.07.2025
DECISION
JUDGMENT
1. The present judgment of this court shall dispose of the suit filed by Ex- Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 1 of 42 against Shri Devender Singh (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) for damages.
2.1 Laconic recapitulation of the facts so pleaded by the plaintiff envisages that the plaintiff joined the Army Medical Corps as Lieutenant on 19.11.1979, after pursuing MBBS from Pune University. Subsequently he was promoted as Major in the year 1988 and during his service, he acquired expertise and doctorate in the field of Anesthesiology in the year 1989. Plaintiff claims to be a thorough profession with clean service record prior to the series of complaints against him which lays the base of this case. The actual situation is faced by the plaintiff, while he was serving as Principal Medical officer on "INS Viraat". Plaintiff pleads that Capt. J.S Bedi, who was commanding Officer of that ship approached the plaintiff for medical check up which is required for his necessary grading but while examining Capt. J.S. Bedi, there was an ailment in his urinary bladder, due to which the plaintiff refused to issue re-categorisation for the Capt. J.S Bedi. Infuriated by the conduct of the plaintiff, he hatched a conspiracy and directed Mrs. Nupur Archrekar to lodge a false complaint against the plaintiff. She got her statement recorded against the plaintiff on 30.01.1995 leveling the allegations of outraging her modesty in CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 2 of 42 party that took place on board INS Viraat on 20.01.1995. However, there is delay of 10 days in filing the complaint. The complaint was recorded after 10 days and no complaint was filed with the police or with the Navy police. Plaintiff pleads that due to this false allegation levelled against him and due to the false implications, he was shifted to INHS Colaba, Bombay on the same day. Since he was transferred out, the successor of the plaintiff issued desired re-categorization to Capt J.S Bedi. Subsequently, in continuation of his conspiracy, Capt. J.S Bedi planted Ms. Ritu Vohra, who was sent as patient to the clinic of the plaintiff and again Ms. Ritu Vohra has levelled allegations against the plaintiff that while examining the chest of the patient, plaintiff outraged her modesty. Plaintiff pleads that Ms. Ritu Vohra was examined in front of two lady assistant in outer room, where the alleged act of outraging the modesty was carried out and thereafter she willingly submitted herself for examining herself in the inner room. The complaint of Ms. Ritu Vohra was recorded on 30.08.1995, which is after four days of the occurrence. On the basis of these allegations, plaintiff was served with the chargesheet and he was sought to be prosecuted on four counts, which are, (i) outraging the modesty of Ms. Nupur Archrekar, (ii) Outraging the modesty of Ms. Ritu Vohra, (iii) CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 3 of 42 holding threats to Capt. J.S Bedi for downgrading his medical category and (iv) examining Ms. Ritu Vohra in absence of any female attendants. On the basis of these allegations, plaintiff was subjected to trial in the Court Martial proceedings U/s 354 of IPC as well as U/s 68, 74 and 77(2) of the Navy Act, 1957. It is the case of the plaintiff that the proceedings were carried out in illegal manner with a pre-set mind of declaring the plaintiff as guilty without following the medical jurisprudence. He was tried illegally. The boy friend of Ms. Nupur Archrekar, Lt. Vaid, deposed in the Court Martial proceedings that Ms. Nupur Archrekar was with her throughout the party and he never saw the plaintiff outraging the modesty of Ms. Nupur Archrekar. Similarly in the complaint filed by Ms. Ritu Vohra, the other witness Ms. Hansa Gohil, Ms. Tina Shah and Ms. Bhairovi were not examined. Thus without relying on the material witnesses, the Court Martial proceedings were concluded. 2.2 As the out come of the Court Martial proceedings, plaintiff was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 24 months alongwith dismissal from Naval Service with disgrace vide order of Court Martial dated 29.11.1995.
CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 4 of 42 2.3 Being aggrieved by the order passed against him, the plaintiff challenged the legality of the conviction and the sentence passed in the Court Martial proceedings by filing the Writ Petition no. 1334 of 1995 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. While disposing off the Writ Petition of the plaintiff on 18.12.1995, directions were issued to the Reviewing Authority to dispose off the plaintiff's appeal/representation within four weeks. Pursuant there to, the Reviewing Authority dispose off the plaintiff's representation vide order dated 29.03.1996, whereby the sentence of the plaintiff was reduced from 2 years to 1 year, while maintaining the penalty of dismissal with disgrace. Plaintiff was exonerated from charge no.(iii) & (iv) i.e. (iii) holding threats to Capt. J.S Bedi for downgrading his medical category and (iv) examining Ms. Ritu Vohra in absence of any female attendants. Thereafter the plaintiff was sent to jail for undergoing the sentence and eventually released from Yerwada Prison, Pune on 29.09.1996 after completion of the sentence. 2.4 Being aggrieved by the orders of the Court Martial dated 29.11.1995 alongwith the order of the Reviewing Authority dated 29.01.1996, plaintiff again approached the High Court of Judicature at Mumbai by way of Writ CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 5 of 42 Petition being Criminal Writ Petition No. 491 of 1996, whereby while disposing off the Writ Petition, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay refused to go into the sufficiency of evidence in view of the bar flowing from Article 33 of the Constitution. However, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay modified the punishment of dismissal from Service from disgrace with Simple Dismissal from Service vide its order dated 17.10.1997.
2.5 After the order passed by the Bombay High Court, plaintiff was busy in looking for the job to sustain himself. However, without wasting time, plaintiff intend to challenge the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. Plaintiff decided to file Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and for this purpose plaintiff contacted Mr. JML. Plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.7,000/- to Mr. JML by way of demand draft no. 284/4544 dated 21.01.1998, issued by Union Bank of India, Mumbai in favour of Mr. JML. After handing over all the papers and fees, plaintiff left India for Dubai on 22.01.1998 in search of job. Even after reaching Dubai, he kept on inquiring about the status of his case and on one specific instance, Mr. JML told the plaintiff that he is a Senior Advocate and case had to be filed by CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 6 of 42 Advocate on Record in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and for this purpose, the Special Leave Petition was entrusted to Mr. Devender Singh in May, 1998. He again paid Rs.5,000/- in favour of Mr. JML through demand draft issued by ALROZOOKU INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE CO. (LLC) on his specific demand which was handed over at the residence of Mr. JML. Thereafter plaintiff started inquiring about his Special Leave Petition from Mr. Devender Singh who told the plaintiff that Special Leave Petition takes 2-3 years to be listed for hearing and petition had already been filed. Defendant no.1 also assured that he will be updated about the progress of his petition. However, defendant no.1 have failed to provide any information regarding the details of the case number, file number etc pertains to Special Leave Petition for almost two years. At that stage, plaintiff became suspicious and requested Lt. Cmdr.(Retd.) Sarwan Singh, who defended the plaintiff in Court Martial proceedings, to visit Delhi personally and verify the status of Special Leave Petition for which an amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid to Mr. Sarwan Singh as his expenses for the travel and other arrangements. Lt. Cmdr.(Retd.) Sarwan Singh came to Delhi and on inquiring the status, he came to know that no such Special Leave Petition was filed till March, 2001. After hearing the shocking CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 7 of 42 news regarding non-filing of Special Leave Petition even after three years of handing over of papers and fees for the purpose to defendant no.1, the plaintiff visited India on 13.03.2001 and thereafter plaintiff contacted defendant no.2 namely Col. Raj Kumar, a Retd. Judge Advocate, Indian Army to arrange for filing Special leave Petition and paid him sum of Rs.15,000/- for filing the petition. Defendant no.2 approached defendant no. 1 to collect all the papers / proceedings and also succeeded in securing the refund of Rs.8,000/- by way of cheque dated 20.04.2001, due to intervention of Mr. JML. However, after receiving all the documents and fees from the plaintiff, defendant no.2 did nothing for next six months and returned the case file to the plaintiff in September, 2001 with the legal opinion that since three year's time period had elapsed, therefore, Special Leave Petition is not maintainable and should not be filed. The plaintiff got further shocked as defendant no.2 has wasted six months' time period without filing the requisite petition. 2.6 Aggrieved by the conduct of defendant no.1 and defendant no.2, plaintiff approached defendant no.3 Mr. PSN and paid a sum of Rs. 35,000/- for the purpose of filing the Special Leave Petition in September, 2001. The CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 8 of 42 plaintiff visited India on 22.11.2001 and met defendant no.3 and left India on 12.12.2001. However, further delay is caused by defendant no.3, who consumed three months' time to file the Special leave Petition with application for condonation of delay of 1470 days. The objections were raised by the registry of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and, therefore, Special leave Petition re-filed with two applications for condonation of delay i.e. (i) first application for condonation of delay of 146 days in re-filing the Special leave Petition and (ii) second application for condonation of delay with further delay of 1616 days in filing the main Special leave Petition.
2.7 The petitions are eventually filed on 25.07.2002. However, while hearing this Special Leave Petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had dismissed the Special Leave Petition on the ground of delay of 1616 days in filing of the Special Leave Petition S.L.P. (Crl) No. CC 6771/2002 vide order dated 23.08.2002. It is pertinent to mention that plaintiff pleads that defendant no.2 swore an affidavit in the Special Leave Petition that delay is caused by him in filing the Special Leave Petition.
CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 9 of 42 2.8 Aggrieved by the out come of the orders, a Review Petition was prepared and was sent by plaintiff through post from Dubai to the Registry of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, who refused to accept the Review Petition on the ground that Review Petition could not be entertained by post. Eventually plaintiff came back to India and filed the Review Petition and then Review Petition was dismissed on the ground of delay of 55 days in filing the Review Petition (Crl.) N. 1470/2002 vide order dated 28.01.2003. Even aggrieved by the orders of the Review Petition, the Curative Petition was filed on 30.04.2004 alongwith the Certificate of Sr. Advocate but the Curative Petition was also dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India without going into the merits vide its order dated 17.11.2004 passed in Curative Petition (Crl.) No. 20 of 2004.
2.9 Being aggrieved by the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, plaintiff has filed the present suit against all three defendants on the ground of negligence and non-performance of professional service. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was very vigilant regarding his case, wherein he provided all the documents and fees to defendant no.1, who acted negligently and CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 10 of 42 defendant no.1 has committed professional mis-conduct by not filing the case. Defendant no.2, further wasted six months in giving his legal opinion and subsequently defendant no.3, who though filed the petition but the same was dismissed on the ground of limitation. Plaintiff pleads that the kind of suffering caused to him can never be compensated in monetary terms. DAMAGES CLAIMED 2.10 However, to mitigate the suffering, the plaintiff sought the following compensation from the defendants for their negligence and deficiency in services:
(i) The following amounts drawn by the plaintiff during the Court Martial Proceedings:
1.1.1996 to 31.12.1996 Rs.35,000x12= Rs. 4,20,000/- 1.1.1997 to 31.12.1997 Rs.36,230x12= Rs. 4,36,000/- 1.1.1998 to 31.12.1998 Rs.37,700x12= Rs. 4,52,000/- 1.1.1999 to 31.12.1999 Rs.39,050x12= Rs. 4,68,600/- 1.1.2000 to 31.12.2000 Rs.40,400x12= Rs. 4,84,800/- 1.1.2001 to 31.12.2001 Rs.41,750x12 = Rs. 5,01,000/- CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 11 of 42 1.1.2002 to 31.12.2002 Rs.43,100x12 = Rs. 5,17,200/- 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2003 Rs.44,450x12= Rs. 5,33,400/- 1.1.2004 to 31.12.2004 Rs.45,480x12= Rs. 5,49,600/- 1.1.2005 to 31.12.2005 Rs.47,150x12= Rs. 5,65,800/-
Total = Rs.49,29,000/- (ii) Mental agony, curtailment of all privileges pension, rights, ex-
servicemen benefits, perks, agony of wife and children, parents ( father died on hearing the verdict), social stigma which could have been taken away if appeal is pursued in time and diligently. Rs.50,00,000/-
(iii) Loss due to curtailment of privileges like subsidized accommodation, electricity charges, LTC, canteen facilities, Mess & Club facilities,full free medical facility etc. @ Rs.30,000/- per month for 120 months. Rs. 36,00,000/-
(iv) Loss incurred by making payments and hiring the services of opposite parties. Rs. 2,91,000/-
(v) Loss on account of deprivation of pension including free medical treatment Rs. 25,00,000/-
Thus the total loss incurred by plaintiff is Rs.1,63,30,000/-. CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 12 of 42
3. Having been put to notice of the present suit, the Defendants tendered their appearance before the court. However, only defendant no.2 filed the written statement, whereas defendant no.1 and defendant no.3 never filed their written statement, as a consequence of which their defence was struck off.
4. Defendant no.2, through his written statement, averred that he will be filing reply to the contents of only those paragraphs that specifically relate to him and the contents of remaining paragraphs are denied for want of knowledge. The foremost preliminary objection taken by the defendant no.2 is that prior to the filing of present suit, the plaintiff has filed a complaint before National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bearing complaint no.21 of 2006, which was dismissed by the (NCDRC) vide order dated 11.12.2006, whereby he was permitted to avail alternative remedy. Such order of the NCDRC was claimed to be without jurisdiction and the delay in filing the present suit can not be condoned on the ground of the case filed before the NCDRC. On merits, defendant no.2 has recriminated by stating that he has caused no damage to the plaintiff and is not guilty of any negligence as alleged by the plaintiff. Defendant no.2 has no knowledge of the alleged visit CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 13 of 42 or stay of the plaintiff outside India. He further submits that he has never been an Advocate on Record in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Defendant no.2 pleads that he had received the documents from defendant no.1 in April, 2001 and after carefully scrutinizing the voluminous record, he gave his legal opinion against filing of any such Special Leave Petition against the order passed by Bombay High Court on 17.10.1997. Defendant no.2 received the documents after almost three years from the date of the orders of Hon'ble Bombay High court, whereby statutory time period for filing the Special leave Petition is 90 days. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India remained closed for summer vacation from May, 2001 to July 2001 and he was only contacted by plaintiff in early August, 2001. Thereafter, through telephonic conversation, he gave his opinion to the plaintiff in September 2001 that the case is not fit to be filed and handed over the entire case papers to Sh. H.R Singh at INS Delhi, Dalhousi Road. There was no legal or contractual obligations on the part of the defendant no.2, which are required to be performed by him. He admitted that he has received Rs.8,000/- from defendant no.1 and he returned back Rs.6,000/- by way of cheque to the representative of the plaintiff, Lt. Cmdr.(Retd.) Sarwan Singh in Mumbai and remaining Rs.2,000/- were deducted as expenses which CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 14 of 42 were borne by the defendant on translation, typing and arranging the requisite documents. Defendant no.2 further pleads that there was no criminal negligence or breach of any civil or consumer rights of plaintiff by him. He categorically submits that the same stand was taken by him while replying to the legal notice issued by the plaintiff dated 23.11.2005. Defendant no.2 vehemently denied receiving Rs.17,000/- from the plaintiff and he admits to receive only the sum of Rs.15,000/- for the purpose of his legal opinion for filing of Special leave Petition. He has rendered his legal opinion based on the facts of the case to defendant no.2 thereby, there is no breach or negligence on the part of defendant no.2 and he prays that present suit be dismissed with cost.
5. Plaintiff filed replication denying the contention made in the written statement of defendant no.2 and reiterated the contents of the plaint.
6. However, it is pertinent to mention herein that during the pendency of the present suit, defendant no.2 had expired and since the cause of action does not survive after the death of defendant no.2, therefore, he was deleted from the array of the parties. Moreover, while arguing the matter, the plaintiff has taken CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 15 of 42 a categorical stand that he does not want to pursue his case against defendant no.3 when he was questioned regarding the liability of defendant no.3 as plaintiff was aware about legal opinion of defendant no.2 qua delay already caused in filing the SLP. Plaintiff has specifically taken a stand that he does not want to pursue his case against defendant no.3 and waived off his claim against defendant no.3. The statement of the plaintiff was recorded on 22.05.2025 subsequently name of defendant no.3 was also deleted from the array of the parties. Thereby for all intents and purposes, the present suit is being pursued by the plaintiff only against defendant no.1 now.
7. All in all, after deletion of parties from the array of defendants , the claim sought by the plaintiff is against defendant no.1 only and other two defendants have been deleted from the array of the parties during the proceedings of the case.
ISSUES
8. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed by the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 09.10.2012 as follows:
CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 16 of 42
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages against the defendants jointly and/or severally to the extent of Rs.1,63,30,000/- or for any other ii. amount? (OPP) iii. Whether the present suit is barred by limitation ?
(OPD)
iv. Whether the suit is devoid of any cause of action
against the defendant no.3? (OPD-3)
v. Whether the suit instituted by the plaintiff is
barred by res judicata ? (OPD)
vi. Relief.
EVIDENCE
9. After framing of issues, plaintiff has stepped into and examined himself as only plaintiff witness as PW 1 on 22.09.2016 and cross-examined on 01.02.2017. Vide order dated 20.03.2018, Local Commissioner was appointed and PW 1 was further cross-examined on 05.07.2018, 20.09.2018 and Plaintiff's evidence was closed vide order dated 13.12.2018. Thereafter by moving two separate applications, defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 have sought recalling of order dated 13.12.2018 and vide order dated 09.01.2023, only one opportunity was granted to the CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 17 of 42 defendants to cross-examine PW-1 Sh Bhaskar Roy. Thereafter vide order dated 13.10.2023, plaintiff's evidence was closed. No witness has been examined on behalf of defendants and opportunity was closed to lead defendant evidence vide order dated 20.05.2024.
10. Plaintiff/Sh. Bhaskar Roy examined himself as PW-1. He supported the contents of the plaint by filing his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A and relied on the following documents:
i. Copy of the order of High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 17.10.1997 passed in criminal Writ Petition no. 491 of 1996 Ex PW-1/1.
ii. Courier receipt for dispatch of the DD to Mr. JML which are Marked as Mark A and Mark B. iii. Copy of receipt dated 01.-09.2001 issued by defendant no.3 Mr. PSN acknowledging the payment of Rs.35,000/- as Ex PW-1/2. iv. Copy of the application for condonation of delay in re-filing the Special leave Petition dated 25.07.2002 is Mark D. CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 18 of 42 v. Copy of the office Report dated 06.08.2002 issued by the Registry of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is Mark E. vi. Copy of order dated 23.08.2002 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P (Crl.) No. CC 6771/2002 is Ex PW-1/3.
vii. Copy of the Order dated 28.01.2003 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Review Petition ( Crl.) No. 1470/2002 of the deponent/plaintiff is Ex PW-1/4.
viii. Copy of the certificate dated 01.03.2004 issued by Union Bank of India, Mumbai evidencing the fact that the issue of Bank Demand Draft favouring Mr. JML for sum of Rs.7,000/- is Ex PW-1/5 ; ix. Copy of the affidavit sworn by Lt. Cdr. ( Retd.) Sarwan Singh on 29.03.2004 is Mark G. x. Copy of the order dated 17.11.2004 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in curative Petition ( Crl.) No. 20 of 2004 is Ex PW-1/6.
xi. Copy of the Consumer Complaint no. 218 of 2006 filed before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi dated Nil Nov.,2006 is Ex PW-1/7.
CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 19 of 42
11. I have heard the arguments addressed by Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the record carefully.
ISSUE-WISE FINDING
12. My issue-wise findings are as under:
ISSUE NO.2 ii. Whether the present suit is barred by limitation ? (OPD)
13. This issue is being taken up for adjudication at the very outset of deliberations since the question of limitation goes to the very root of the present dispute. For determining this issue, the moot point to be adjudicated is to ascertain the terminus quo i.e. starting point for evaluating the period of limitation.
14. To ascertain the point of inception of limitation, few facts pertaining to the issue are that :-
One Writ Petition with petition no. 491/1996 was filed by the present CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 20 of 42 plaintiff, which was dismissed by the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay on 17.10.1997. To challenge the said order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, the plaintiff met Mr. JML and handed over all the documents pertaining to the case alongwith payments on 21.01.1998. Subsequently, further documents were also handed over alongwith further fees of Rs.5,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to Mr. JML in May, 1998. Plaintiff pleads that during one of the conversations with defendant no.1, he communicated to the plaintiff that the Special leave Petition has been filed. However, it will take 2-3 years time for the matter to be listed for hearing. However, there was no further communication with defendant no.1 due to which plaintiff got suspicious regarding status of Special Leave Petition before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, whereby he requested his friend Lt. Cdr. ( Retd.) Sarwan Singh to visit Delhi and verify the actual facts qua the filing of the Special Leave Petition by the defendant no.1. The plaintiff pleads that his friend communicated in March, 2001 that the Special leave Petition has not been filed till date. Thereafter he visited India on 13.03.2001 to meet his counsel. Further, it is the case of the plaintiff that defendant no.1 refunded CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 21 of 42 the amount of Rs. 8,000/- on 20.04.2001.
15. Therefore, as per his own case, defendant no.1 was negligent in performing his legal duties of filing the Special leave Petition on behalf of the plaintiff and cause of action for filing the present suit accrued in favour of the plaintiff in March, 2001. Since the present suit is filed for damages due to the negligent act of the defendant, therefore, March, 2001 should be taken as the terminus quo for filing the present suit. Even otherwise, the Special Leave Petition, which was filed by defendant no.1 was dismissed on 23.08.2002.
16. As per the canonical rules of limitation, the time period provided for filing the present suit is three years, as per Article 113 of the Schedule annexed with the Limitation Act. However, the present suit was filed on 29.05.2007, whereby there is a delay of six years and one month from the date of knowledge qua the negligent act of defendant no.1. Despite specific knowledge, the plaintiff has not filed the case within three years from the date of being aware about the negligent act of the defendant. There is neither any plea of condonation of delay nor do any cogent or clinching circumstances surface on record to justify the delay in filing of CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 22 of 42 the present suit. The Law of Limitation is based on the premise that the Law will help the vigilant and not the indolent, as envisaged in the legal maxim "vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt". Therefore, this court has not hitch in opining that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation.
17. In oblivion of the above, if momentarily the arguments of the plaintiff to the effect that the cause of action for the present suit accrued on the dismissal of Special Leave Petition, are accepted , even then the period of limitation would be reckoned from the 23rd day of August 2022. Even from the said date, the case has been filed after delay of almost five years. So even if the point of inception for limitation is considered to be the date of dismissal of the Special leave Petition, even then it would be a totally fallacious to say that the suit is within limitation.
18. As per the facts narrated in the plaint, plaintiff has taken the terminus quo to be the date of dismissal of the Curative Petition. However, such a plea is neither potent nor persuasive. Subsequent to the dismissal of the Special CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 23 of 42 leave Petition, he has filed Review Petition on 28.01.2003 and Curative Petition was filed on 30.04.2004. Thereafter, Curative Petition was dismissed on 17.11.2004. Thus this argument of the plaintiff is without any merits because the subsequent petition filed does not, under any stretch of legal implication, extend the period of limitation for filing the present suit by the plaintiff. The Review Petition and Curative Petition are the remedies provided to the plaintiff seeking the challenge to the Special leave Petition, which is the matter of right but can not be construed as 'continuation' of the cause of action qua defendant no.1. The plaintiff was aware about the alleged conduct of the defendant no.1 in March, 2001, therefore, the period of limitation will have to be reckoned from the date of knowledge of the plaintiff qua the non-filing of the Special Leave Petition. The subsequent engagement with other two counsels and subsequent petitions have no bearing upon the issue of limitation. Since the present suit is now alive only against defendant no.1, therefore, the submissions and pleadings of the plaintiff to consider date of dismissal of the Curative Petition as the terminus quo of limitation for the present suit, is bereft of merit and sustainability. The position would have to be CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 24 of 42 viewed in a different perspective had the suit been continued against all the three defendants but in the present context where the plaintiff is seeking remedy only against defendant no.1, the law of limitation does not provide any succour to the case of the plaintiff.
19. It is also the settled position of law that once period of limitation begins to run, no subsequent act or conduct will extent the period of limitation for filing of the suit. Section 9 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as hereby reproduced:-
"Section 9 of the Limitation Act : "categorically states that when once time has begun to run, no subsequent disability or inability to institute a suit or make an application stops it":
20. The law of limitation is based on the premise that if a person is aggrieved by any act then an action is required to be taken in the stipulated time period as provided under the statue of limitation. The basic premise for legislating the Limitation Act is to discard the stale claims of the parties, who keep on sleeping over their rights and wake-up from their slumber CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 25 of 42 after passage of time. The objective of Limitation Act is based on the premise "that men are mortal, disputes should not remain immortal" as after passage of time, the quality of evidence as well as the knowledge of the individual fades. Therefore, strict adherence to the principles of limitation is one of the pre-requisite for claiming any right.
21. The apparent inaction and lack of promptitude on the part of the plaintiff smacks of malafides and thus is a cogent ground for declining the relief prayed for by him. Discretionary relief of damages cannot be granted to a party whose conduct is laced with procrastination and dithering. Lack of bonafides imputable to a party is a significant and relevant fact while discussing the concept of limitation . The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. The conduct, behavior and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. It has been CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 26 of 42 held in a catena of judicial pronouncements that the increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters. The court has to draw a distinction between delay and inordinate delay; when delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the court cannot act in oblivion of the delay on sympathetic grounds alone. When the plaintiff has lacked impetus to pursue his legal remedy at the earliest possible juncture, then there is no option left with the court but to opine that the principle of delay and laches disentitles the plaintiff to seek the relief prayed for.
22. For the reasons mentioned above and being alive to the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that plaintiff has filed the present suit after termination of the period of limitation. Therefore, issue no.2 is decided in favour of defendant no.1 and against the plaintiff resultantly the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on this ground.
CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 27 of 42 ISSUE NO.1
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages against the defendants jointly and/or severally to the extent of Rs.1,63,30,000/- or for any other amount? (OPP)
23. As per settled law, the plaintiff is to stand on his own legs for proving his case, as such it is the irremissible duty of the plaintiff to establish his claim against the defendant. Since the very edifice of the case of the plaintiff is mounted upon 'contractual obligation of the defendant', so it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to establish the client and attorney relationship as well as to establish the damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the conduct of the defendant. It is also to be established by the plaintiff that the claim of damages is not speculative, confabulated, illusory or hypothetical in nature and that he has suffered actual, quantifiable and concrete loss due to acts or omissions of defendant no.1.
24. To ascertain the issue in hand, this court has taken note of the facts that the basic allegations of negligence are based upon the allegations that CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 28 of 42 despite of being appointed as a lawyer, defendant no.1 has not filed the Special leave Petition before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, due to which, plaintiff suffered certain losses. The Special leave Petition is required to be filed to challenge the order passed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court against the defendant on 17.10.1997.
25. There were allegations against the present plaintiff of outraging the modesty of two ladies alongwith the allegations of threatening the Captain of the ship INS Viraat as well as for examining Ms. Ritu Vohra in the absence of female attendant. On the basis of these allegations Court Martial proceedings were conducted, whereby the plaintiff was held guilty and punished with rigorous imprisonment of 24 months alongwith the dismissal from the Naval service with disgrace. Aggrieved by the orders of the Court Martial, the present plaintiff challenged the said order before the Bombay High Court, vide Writ Petition no. 1334/1995, which was disposed off by the Bombay High Court on 18.12.1995 with the directions to the reviewing authority to decide the plaintiff's representation within four weeks. Thereafter the Reviewing Authority CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 29 of 42 while disposing the representation filed by the plaintiff had reduced the sentence awarded to the plaintiff from two years rigorous imprisonment to one year simple imprisonment, while maintaining the penalty of dismissal with disgrace vide order dated 29.03.2016. However, plaintiff was not satisfied with the orders passed by the Reviewing Authority, therefore, another Writ Petition is filed by the present plaintiff before the Bombay High Court vide Writ Petition no. 1334/1995. The Hon'ble Court while passing orders reduced the punishment of dismissal from service with disgrace to simple dismissal from service, vide its order dated 17.10.1997. It was also categorically ordered by the Hon'ble Court that plaintiff is entitled to all service benefits as the punishment has been reduced to simple dismissal from the service. However, keeping in mind the Article 33 of the Constitution, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court refused to entertain the matter further. It is also pertinent to note here that while passing the orders all the consequential benefits were allowed in favour of the plaintiff. Despite of these orders, the plaintiff intended to challenge the orders passed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court by filing an Special leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 30 of 42 India, whereby he engaged the services of Mr. JML and handed over all the documents and fees on 21.01.1998.
26. However, surprisingly Mr. JML was not impleaded as party despite of the fact that as per his own pleadings, the plaintiff met Mr. JML and handed over the documents and fees to Mr. JML. Now to establish his case against defendant no.1, the first requisite is to establish the contractual obligations of the defendant no.1 against the plaintiff to file the Special leave Petition. This court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has not established his case due to the following reasons - firstly, throughout his pleadings or evidence nowhere, has he mentioned that he has ever met defendant no.1 prior to the filing of the present suit. It is the case of the plaintiff that he held only one meeting with Mr. JML at Hon'ble Bombay High Court, where he handed over few documents, which are subsequently mentioned by the plaintiff in his cross- examination as the orders of Hon'ble Bombay High Court passed in his second Writ Petition with Writ Petition No. 491/96. Since he had never met the defendant no.1, therefore, it is very difficult for this court to CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 31 of 42 believe that there is any contractual obligation of the defendant to file the Special leave Petition on behalf of the plaintiff. It is a matter of fact that the present plaintiff has filed numerous cases before various forums before filing the Special leave Petition, therefore, he must be aware that he needed to consult the lawyer by discussing his case after which he is required to sign the petition as well as the vakalatnama alongwith payment of professional fees to the defendant no.1. But as per the facts of the case, no professional fees is ever paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, even no petition or vakalatnama was ever signed by the plaintiff. In terms of these facts, it is beyond doubt that their exist contractual relationship between plaintiff and defendant no.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that entire transaction has taken place with Mr. JML, who is not party to the present suit. Therefore, defendant no.1 can not be held liable for the actions or omissions, if any, of Mr. JML. Moreover, no fees was ever directly paid to defendant no.1, thereby no contractual obligations interse the plaintiff and defendant no.1 have arisen at any point of time, whereby defendant no.1 cannot be held liable for non- filing of the suit. Moreover, the cross-examination of plaintiff does not CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 32 of 42 inspire confidence of this court as contradictory stands have been taken by the plaintiff regarding meeting, signing of documents, payment of money etc. The deposition of the plaintiff, when read as a whole, does not exude credence and as such the self serving, discrepant and shaky statement does not in any manner buttress his pleaded version. The burden to establish the fact that their existed any contractual relationship between these two parties is on the plaintiff but he has miserably failed to prove or fortify the same let aside the establishing of this contractual obligation on the preponderance of probabilities. Thereby since no contractual obligations have arisen between the plaintiff and defendant no.1, therefore, defendant no.1 can not be held liable to pay damages to the plaintiff.
27. Now on the other issue of the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff, present suit is filed on the premise that in case plaintiff would have filed the Special leave Petition, the outcome of the case would have been in favour of the plaintiff and he would have received all the consequential benefits as claimed in the present suit. This court is of the considered opinion that the entire premise of the present suit is speculative in nature. CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 33 of 42 Damages are not contingent in nature and nobody can surmise the ultimate fate of any litigation. It would be an absolute fallacy to say with certainty that the plaintiff would have succeeded in case the Special leave Petition would have been heard on merits. Such speculative claims have no legs to stand upon as court can not adjudicate claims on the expectation of a favourable outcome. It can not be held by this court that the outcome of the Special leave Petition would have been in the favour of the plaintiff as there is no evidence to establish the same.
28. Now, coming on the last aspect of this issue pertaining to the actual damage suffered by the plaintiff and the actual claim pleaded by the plaintiff in the present suit.
29. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking relief from the defendants amounting to Rs. 1,63,30,000/- under the following heads:-
(a) Directing the opposite parties to pay the following amounts to the plaintiff:-
(i) Emoluments had the plaintiff continued in service as detailed in para 5 above- Rs. 49,29,000/-.
CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 34 of 42
(ii) Mental agony, curtailment of all privileges pension, rights,ex-servicemen benefits, perks, agony of wife and children, parents (father died on hearing the verdict), social stigma which could have been taken away if appeal is pursued in time and diligently-Rs.50,00,000/-.
(iii) Loss due to curtailment of privileges like subsidized accommodation, electricity charges, LTC, canteen facilities, Mess & Club facilities, full free medical facility etc.@ Rs.30,000/- per month for 120 months.
Rs. 36,00,000/- .
(iv) Loss incurred by making payments and hiring the services of opposite parties as detailed in Para 8 above Rs. 2,91,000/-
(v) Loss on account of deprivation of pension including free medical treatment Rs. 25,00,000/-
The total from item Nos. (i), (ii),(iii), (iv) and (v) above- Rs.1,63,30,000/-.
30. It is the matter of fact as admitted by the plaintiff in his cross-
examination that he was fully employed by the Government of Qatar from January, 1998 to October, 2018, whereby he was drawing salary and he was not an unemployed person. It is a matter of common prudence that an individual can only work with one institute at a time and can claim salary only from one service. Since the plaintiff was employed and ably earning a salary from the Government of Qatar, CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 35 of 42 therefore now to file the present case and claim emoluments is devoid of any merit or logic. This argument of the plaintiff that he should be compensated for the salary part, which he would have received as an outcome of the Special leave Petition does not carry much weight and is liable to the rejected by this court on the ground of plaintiff being employed and earning during the period for which claim has been filed before this court. As far as the damages qua the services privileges, which he would have enjoyed in case the Special leave Petition would have succeeded is again devoid of any logic on the grounds that all such reliefs have already been granted by the orders of Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide its order in Writ Petition no. 291/96. Since the plaintiff has not filed his claims for service benefits after a favourable order from Hon'ble Bombay High Court, therefore, making a claim qua such damages is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
31. Having compounded and considered the entire gamut of pleadings, evidence, assertions and counter assertions of the rival parties, this court CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 36 of 42 is of the considered opinion that the case of the plaintiff was still-born from the very inception as there was no relation of defendant no.1 with the plaintiff and defendant no.1 can not be held liable for any damages. Moreover, he is ably employed, earning salary from the Government of Qatar for the period in dispute, therefore, no damages can be saddled upon the defendant. The subsequent employment benefits have already been ordered in favour of the plaintiff, therefore for the reasons mentioned above, the plaintiff has failed to establish its case qua the damages suffered resultantly the issue No.1 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
32. This issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
This court is of the considered opinion that plaintiff is not entitled to claim damages from the defendants on account of his speculative claims, alternative employment, failure to establish any contractual relationship with the defendant as well as favourable orders from Hon'ble Bombay High Court qua the subsequent service benefits.
CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 37 of 42 ISSUE NO.3 Whether the suit is devoid of any cause of action against the defendant no.3? (OPD-3)
33. This issue is specifically framed qua defendant no.3. However, during the pendency of these proceedings, the plaintiff through his counsel has taken a categorical stand that he wishes to withdraw the case qua defendant no.3 and waived off all his claim against defendant no.3 by virtue of a statement recorded on behalf of the party by his counsel on 22.05.2025. This statement was given when specifically countered by this court with the query qua liability of defendant no.3 when he already had a legal opinion of defendant no.2 against filing the Special leave Petition on the ground of delay. Resultantly, the defendant no.3 was deleted from the arrays of the parties vide order of this court dated 31.05.2025. Since the plaintiff has already dropped his case against defendant no.3, therefore, this issue is not required to be decided and this issue is decided against the plaintiff.
34. However, for the purposes of discussing this issue, it is a matter of fact CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 38 of 42 that plaintiff has stated that the original defendant no.2 namely Sh. Col. Retd. Raj Kumar had given his legal opinion that the Special leave Petition should not be filed as there is a delay in filing of the Special leave Petition. Despite of the legal opinion against the filing of the Special leave Petition, plaintiff still approached defendant no.3 for the filing of the Special leave Petition. This court is of the considered opinion that the dismissal of the Special leave Petition on the grounds of delay in filing of the Special leave Petition can not be attributed to the defendant no.3 because plaintiff was already aware that there is a delay in filing of the Special leave Petition as well as for the reasons that defendant no.3 has filed the Special leave Petition within 88 days of receiving instructions from the client, which is the reasonable time consumed for filing of a Special leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
ISSUE NO. 4 Whether the suit instituted by the plaintiff is barred by res judicata ? (OPD) CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 39 of 42
35. It is a matter of fact that prior to filing of the present suit, the plaintiff has filed the case before NCDRC and by filing complaint bearing no. 21/2006 in November, 2006. This complaint was, however dismissed by the NCDRC vide its order dated 11.12.2006 on the ground of limitation as well as on the merits of the matter.
36. At the time of dismissing the complaint, liberty was granted to the plaintiff to approach the appropriate court of forum. Subsequent to these orders, the plaintiff has challenged the order of NCDRC before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. However, vide its order dated 23.02.2007, the said appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. On the basis of these facts, the counsel for defendant has relied on the doctrine of merger, where he vehemently argued that since the order was passed in Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, thereby the orders of NCDRC merges into the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, thereby the issue has attained the finality.
37. The doctrine of res-judicata is enshrined U/s 11 of the Code of Civil CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 40 of 42 Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC) and is based on the basic premise that one dispute should be adjudicated only by one litigation and there should not be multiplicity of litigation qua the same aspect. The basic ingredient to establish the principle of res-judicata is that orders should have been passed by a competent court having jurisdiction between the same parties qua the same issue and should have conclusively decided the rights of the parties on merits. As a matter of fact, the dispute before the Hon'ble NCDRC is between the same parties on the issue of negligence of defendant no.1 in providing legal services to the plaintiff, which is the issue in the present suit. The orders of the NCDRC as well as the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 23.02.2007 in an appeal filed by the present plaintiff against the orders of NCDRC conclusively decided the issue between the parties on merits. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the present suit is barred by the principle of res-judicata as all the ingredients of Section 11 of CPC are established in the present case, therefore, this issue is decided in favour of defendant and against the plaintiff. CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 41 of 42 ISSUE NO.:5 RELIEF:
38. Based on the reasons mentioned supra, it is categorically held by this court that the present suit is not only barred on the ground of limitation and res-judicata but also the plaintiff has miserably failed to establish his claim of damages, thereby the present suit is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed.
39. In terms of observation above, the present suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed being devoid of merits. There is no order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
40. File be consigned to record room.Digitally signed
Announced in the open Court HARVINDER by HARVINDER
SINGH SINGH JOHAL
JOHAL Date: 2025.07.12
on 10.07.2025 14:52:47 +0530
(Harvinder Singh Johal)
District Judge-02 & Waqf Tribunal,
New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts,
10.07.2025.
CS No. 56129/2016. Ex-Surgeon Commander Bhaskar Roy Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. Page 42 of 42