Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

R.Subbiah, J. - President.  

 

           The Revision Petitioner is the Opposite Party in the main case-CC. No.263 of 2018, on the file of the DCDRC, Coimbatore, before which, he filed CMP No.54 of 2019 in C.C. No.263 of 2018, seeking to dismiss the main case/complaint on the ground of limitation and, aggrieved by the order, dated 24.05.2022, of the District Commission in dismissing the said Miscellaneous Petition, he has come up with the present Revision.

           2. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party, by pointing out at the first instance that the respondent herein filed the complaint in C.C. No.263 of 2018 before the District Commission, Coimbatore, seeking compensation against the OP on the allegation that the OP had performed the eye-surgery to him in a negligent manner resulting in sight complications and, by  stating further that the surgery was performed in the year 2003, whereas, the complaint came to be filed  only in the year 2018, with a hefty delay of about 15 years, would submit that, since the complaint was taken on file by the District Commission, without even considering the lurking issue of limitation, the OP took out C.M.P. No.54 of 2019, seeking to dismiss the complaint as barred by limitation for the reason that, as per Section 24-A of the CP Act, the District Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action had arisen and further, in the given case, no condone delay petition was filed, however, by recording an erroneous finding that it is an instance of continuous cause of action, the District Commission rushed to dismiss the petition which only reflects that the said Commission has exercised its discretion perversely upon wrong principles, thereby, causing gross injustice and hardship to the OP.  Learned counsel, in an endeavor to assail the reasoning given by the District Commission, would argue that it is not the continuous sufferings but the continuity of the source of sufferings that constitute continuous cause of action, which is totally absent in the present instance.  In support of his argument, learned counsel relies upon a decision of this Commission reported in II (2022) CPJ 53 (TN) (Dr.Raghavendra Rao v. Standard Chartered Bank Ltd.), to highlight the point that continuous cause of action is continuing source of injury and states that, while so, without any basis to render a finding of continuous cause of action, in a way, the District Commission has exceeded its jurisdiction by unjustly dismissing the petition.  Similarly, it has been held in a number of decisions including the one in M/s.Megacity (Bangalore) Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. V. Rita Adyanthaya (2013-2-CPR-122-NC), wherein, the National Commission has ruled that act of the petitioner in approaching a wrong forum will not entitle him to have the delay condoned and that being so, the complainant cannot seek to derive any leverage by referring to the earlier complaint preferred in C.C. No.1 of 2015 before the District Commission, Tiruvannamalai, which dismissed the same for want of jurisdiction.  When the OP strongly objected for entertaining the complaint, the District Commission ought to have decided the preliminary issues so as to bring the time-barred litigation to an end, but, it did not do so. At any rate, the present impugned order passed without due regard to the statutory provision under Section 24-A of the Act is perverse and erroneous and hence, the same is liable to be set aside by allowing the present Revision, learned counsel pleaded strenuously.