9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Whether the suit is barred by limitation due to defects in the presentation of the plaint. - Interpretation of Rules 1 and 2 of Chapter IV of Delhi High Court (O.S.) Rules, 1967 in relation to the limitation period for filing a suit. Analysis: The appeal in this case stemmed from a Single Judge's order on the issue of whether a suit was time-barred. The suit was filed for damages for the tort of libel, with the alleged insinuation made in a newspaper on 11.9.1986. The plaintiff presented the plaint on 10.9.1987, falling within the one-year limitation period under Article 75 of the Limitation Act. However, the plaint was found defective on three counts and was returned for rectification. It was refiled on 16.10.1987 and again on 17.10.1987 after addressing objections. The defendants argued that the suit should be considered filed only on 17.10.1987 when the last defect was rectified, relying on Delhi High Court (O.S.) Rules, 1967. The Court examined Rules 1 and 2 of the Rules, emphasizing that these rules did not extend the limitation period set by the Limitation Act. The Court affirmed that the date of presentation, even with defects, should be considered the filing date for limitation purposes, rejecting the defendants' argument. Thus, the suit was deemed to be filed within the limitation period. The Court clarified that the rules in question did not provide for an extension of the limitation period specified in the Limitation Act. The Court highlighted that the refiling of the plaint after rectifying defects did not alter the original presentation date for limitation purposes. The Court emphasized that the plaintiff's initial presentation of the plaint fell within the limitation period, and the subsequent rectifications did not impact the filing date. Consequently, the Court upheld the Single Judge's decision, dismissing the appeal and affirming that the suit was not time-barred.
|
