limitation
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 06 June 2011
This query is : Resolved
the plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of money against the defendant,the defendant is complainant in a case filed u/s 138 NI act,the criminal case has taken more than 3 years for disposal, ultimately the plaintiff herein and accused in the criminal case was acquitted. the plaintiff/accused filed the present civil case for recovery of money against the defendant/complainant with in one year from the date of disposal of the criminal case, IS THE PERIOD TAKEN IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS TO SAVE THE LIMITATION IN FILING THE CIVIL SUIT,if yes, is there any citation, please quote, is the citation of AIR 2000 SC 2023 is relevant,the relevant senior judge is not accepting the citation because the word of criminal court proceedings are not used in the said citation for numbering the suit, please advise
PALNITKAR V.V.
(Expert) 07 June 2011
Limitation will not extend in this case. Criminal case is never filed for recovery of money. Hence, time spent in criminal case is not relevant.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 07 June 2011
There was no valid reason with the plaintiff (accused in criminal case) not to file civil suit for recovery within the limitation of 3 years of accrual of cause of action. This limitation ipso-facto do not extend merely because the plaintiff was an accused in some other case. There is no case-law for the help of plaintiff.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 07 June 2011
"the plaintiff/accused filed the present civil case for recovery of money against the defendant/complainant with in one year from the date of disposal of the criminal case, IS THE PERIOD TAKEN IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS TO SAVE THE LIMITATION IN FILING THE CIVIL SUIT"
IF I TRY TO IMPORT FACTS CORRECTLY AS PUT BY YOU AS COPY PASTED ABOVE,YOUR VERY QUESTION
DOES NOT ARISE??
1stly>AS PLAINTIFF OF THE SUIT HERE WAS NOT THE COMPLAINANT BUT ACCUSED IN THE PROCEEDING U/S138,SO NOT EVEN BY IMAGINATION THERE COULD BE A CHANCE TO PLEAD THAT PLAINTIFF ACTED BONAFIDE BUT UNDER A WRONG ADVISE IN A WRONG COURT.
2NDLY THE 2 PROCEEDINGS MAY GO TO GATHER.
3RDLY,THERE IS NO PROVISION IN LIMITATION ACT TO CONDONE EVEN A SINGLE DAY DELAY THAT PLAINTIFF WAS PREVENTED FROM FILING THE SUIT DUE TO BEING AN ACCUSE IN A CASE OR EVEN BEING IN JAIL AS SECTION 5 APPLIES ONLY TO APPLICATIONS AND APPEALS AND NOT TO SUITS.
SECTION14 OR SECTION 15 ARE THE PROVISIONS WHICH EXTEND LIMITATION TO SUITS ALSO BUT THEY ARE NOT ATTRACTED ON FACTS OF YOUR CASE AS A PROCEEDING U/S138 IS INITIATED AS A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING AND MOREOVER IT WAS NOT INITIATED BY THIS PLAINTIFF ,RATHER THE SAME WAS INITIATED BY DEFENDANT.
WITH THIS I FIND SUIT IF ONCE TIME BARRED ,IT IS TIME BARRED FOREVER.
