MOHIUDDIN ANSARI Versus MUHAMMAD ARIF SIDDIQUI

1. This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 7-8-1988 passed by the IInd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi Central, whereby he dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioner.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the above Civil Revision Petition are that the respondent sued the petitioners for damages amounting to Rs.100,000 for deI7matiori. It was alleged in the suit that one of the petitioners made a false and baseless accusation against the respondent, his son and son-in-law to the police and also instituted a suit being suit No. 1417/1986 filed by the petitioner No. 1 in the Court of IXth Civil Judge, Karachi West, for permanent injunction against the respondent was the abnormal action of the petitioner No.l, wherein he used the words "5 goonda persons" including the defendant (Muhammad Arif Siddiqui), his son Akber and son-in-law Perwaiz Ansari entered the house of the plaintiff (That is defendant in the suit). Ultimately the suit was dismissed for non -prosecution. In para 12 of the plaint, it was alleged "that the cause of action arose to the plaintiff against the defendants for the first time on 6-10-1986 when the defendant No. 2 lodged false report with police; and then on 8-10-1986 when the defendant No. 2 has filed a false case against the plaintiff and obtained ex parte stay by way of fraud and misrepresentation; and finally on 16-9-1987 when the above Suit No. 1417/1986 was dismissed against no action is taken till to date and thereafter is a continuing one". The summons of the suit were served upon the petitioners. The petitioners filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejecting the plaint on the ground that the suit was time-barred. The respondent resisted the application. The learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application. The learned Senior Civil Judge observed that Article 23 of Limitation Act was applicable to the instant case.

3. The petitioners being aggrieved against the order dated 7-8-1988 have filed the present civil revision.

4. I have heard Mr. Nizam Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the civil revision and Mr. SA. Jalib Chaudhry, Advocate for the respondent. I have perused the plaint and the impugned order.

5. I have carefully considered the agruments of the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the suit was filed by the respondent against the petitioners for damages amounting to Rs.1,00,000. It was a suit for compensation for libel or slander, the limitation applicable to which was that prescribed by Article 24 or Article 25 of Schedule 1. It follows that the suit is barred by time whether it falls within Article 24 or Article 25, Limitation Act and it is not disputed that this is so if these Articles apply. It was however held by the Senior Civil Judge that the suit fell within Article 23, which runs as follows:--

6. Description of suit

7. Period of Limitation.

8. Time from which period begins to run.

9. "23.- For compensation for a malicious prosecution.

10. One year

11. When the plaintiff is acquitted, or the prosecution is otherwise terminated."

12. When the plaintiff is acquitted, or the prosecution is otherwise terminated."

13. This gives the period of limitation as one year after the judgment of the suit or concluding of the prosecution. I am of the opinion that the suit was barred by time because it was a suit for compensation for libel or slander, the limitation applicable to which was that prescribed by Article 24 or Article 25 of Schedule 1. The respondent averred in his plaint that report was lodged with the police on 6-10-1986 and the suit No. 1417 of 1986 was filed on 8-10-1986 and the suit was filed on 24-11-1987 after lapse of over one year. It is crystal clear that the suit was barred by time. The order of the trial Court dated 7-8-1988 cannot, therefore, possibly be upheld. There is thus apparent jurisdictional error in the order in the sense that the order suffers from patent and material irregularity or illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction of the trial Court in rejecting the application.

14. In the result the Civil revision is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the plaint is rejected. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.

15. M.Y.H./M-845/K

16. Petition allowed