9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the dismissal of a civil suit for compensation on the ground of limitation, specifically concerning the applicability of Article 74 of the Limitation Act and whether the suit is for malicious prosecution or for damages. Summary: Issue 1: Dismissal of the civil suit on the ground of limitation The appellant filed a civil suit seeking compensation for harassment, mental agony, and other losses due to false implication in a criminal case. The court below held that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 74 of the Limitation Act, despite excluding certain periods. The appellant appealed this decision, arguing that his suit was not for malicious prosecution but for damages. Issue 2: Applicability of Article 74 of the Limitation Act The court considered whether the suit fell under Article 74, which prescribes a one-year limitation period for suits related to malicious prosecution. The appellant contended that his suit should be treated as one for damages, subject to a three-year limitation period. However, the court found that the appellant failed to demonstrate any other legal basis for the suit apart from malicious prosecution. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 74 of the Limitation Act. Despite the appellant's argument for a three-year limitation period for damages, the court found no merit in the appeal and affirmed the lower court's decision. Separate Judgment: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
|
