ABAID ULLAH KHAN, J.--This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Lahore, dated the 11th June, 1979, dismissing the appellant's suit as time-barred. It may be convenient to describe the plaintiff-appellant's version of the case as set out in the plaint. The appellant, Chaudhary Sharif Ahmad, carried on business under the name and style of Messrs Shamim Textile Mills of which he was the sole proprietor. On the 13th of June, 1955, the appellant applied to the Director of Industries, Punjab, for permission to establish a factory of 40 rayon and art silk power-looms alongwith preparatory machinery in Lahore. The Director of Industries issued a defective permission vide his letter No.IPP/867, dated 27th April, 1957. During all this period no action was taken on the import application submitted by the appellant on the 22nd January, 1957. The appellant had to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court and it was during the pendency of his Writ Petition No.240 of 1958, that the Director of Industries moved the Textile Commissioner, Government of Pakistan, for the first time for the grant of import licence of 40 art silk power-looms vide his letter No.P/V/C/12(2), dated 22nd August, 1959, and the Central Government in the Ministry of industries agreed to issue the requisite import licence. The appellant was asked by the Director of Industries, vide his letter No.IP/DD/95, dated 29th/30th January, 1960, to submit the necessary proposal for the import of machinery. The relief having been granted Writ Petition No.240 of 1958 was withdrawn by the appellant on the 26th February, 1960.
2. The appellant submitted to the Director of Industries an application dated 4th February, 1960, alongwith the necessary documents for the grant of import licence. He issued five reminders to the Director of Industries, copies of which were sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Industries, Government of Pakistan, Rawalpindi, for expeditious disposal of his import application but all these reminders remained unacknowledged. The appellant was informed of the disposal of his import application by the Ministry of Industries through Director of Industries, vide his letter No.IP/V/12(2)/60, dated the 2nd November. The Secretary of Industries not only refused to grant import licence but also revoked the sanction already given by the Director of Industries under the direction of the High Court's order dated 18th October, 1956, passed in Writ Petition No.215 of 1956. The appellant approached the departments for a review of the entire matter but as no heed was paid to his request, he came to the High Court with Writ Petition No.1170 of 1962, for getting refusal to issue import licence and to sanction the looms declared to be without lawful authority and for issuance of directions to the Government to sanction 40 art silk power-looms and grant a licence for their import. The writ petition was accepted on the 14th May, 1.971, in the following terms:- "The result is that the writ petition is accepted; the impugned orders in so far as they cancelled the sanction or refused to sanction the looms or the setting up of the-factory workable with 45 persons are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal consequence against the petitioners and are quashed as indicated in paragraph 13 of this judgment above. In so far as the question of issuing an import licence to the petitioners is concerned, the case is remanded to the Central Government to be decided afresh by its functionary, namely, the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, in accordance with lave. It is to be pointed out that it is a very old application of the petitioners, dated 22-1--1957, supported by another application in 1960 and a third application in 1968 which should all be decided together after hearing the petitioners and providing them an opportunity to defend their case. There will be no order as to costs."
3. The appellant complains that as a result of unlawful, malicious and negligent acts of the various functionaries of the Provincial and Federal Government, particularly the decision conveyed vide letter No.IP/V/12(2)/60, dated 2nd November, 1960, refusing the grant of import licence and revoking the sanction already granted, he suffered heavy financial loss. According to him if the Government functionaries had not acted in the above manner and had granted the necessary sanction and import licences for the import of power-looms within a reasonable time in 1957 he would have been able to install the factory and run it m 1957 and would have thus earned an average of Rs.1,00,000.00 per year. The total loss which the appellant says he suffered on account of illegal and malicious acts of omissions and commissions and the negligence of the functionaries of the respondents Governments is assessed at Rs.16,25,000.00. He asserts that he is entitled to receive the aforesaid amount from the respondents and for recovery of which he brought suit.
4. The appellant states that in order to cover their own acts of commissions and omissions and in a desperate bid to frustrate the course of justice the respondents and their representatives levelled a false charge of forgery which allegation was vehemently argued (on the 19th April 1971 when Writ Petition No.1170 of 1962 was heard) in the open Court m the presence of so many distinguished lawyers and members of public and he was thus subjected to extreme disgrace and defamatory attacks. He makes grievance to the fact that he had suffered heavily in his reputation and underwent a great mental torture. He asks for payment of damages of Rs.10,00,000.Oo on this account. In all his suit, which he instituted on the 30th June, 1972, was for recovery of Rs.26,25,000.
5. The respondents, apart from contesting the suit on merits, pleaded the bar of limitation. The learned trial Court thought that article 22 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1908, laying down the period of a year regulated the institution of the suit and as the appellant had brought suit long after the lapse of a year of the commission of injury complained of it was out of time.
Therefore, he dismissed the suit.
6. Obviously Article 22 banked upon by the learned trial Court is inapplicable to the facts of the appellant's case. The appellant was not asking for compensation for any injury to his person. He was complaining against the malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance of the respondents' functionaries as also against their libellous and slanderous actions. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant it is Article 36 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act which is relevant for the purpose of determining whether the appellant's suit in so far as it pertains to recovery of damages arising out of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance of the respondents is within or beyond A time. According to the appellant's own case the respondents' functionaries' actions or any inactions complained of took place latest in 1960. The suit brought in 1972 was clearly beyond tune. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the time should be taken to run from two months after he had served statutory notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure upon, the respondents on the 17th June, 1972, is devoid of any legal blessing because service of such a notice was not obligatory and it could not alter what had already happened. Again the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.1170 of 1962, pronounced on the 14th May, 1971, could not furnish cause o: action for the actions or inactions of the respondents' functionaries which had taken place in 1960. The appellant could have sued the respondents without waiting for and independently of the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.1170 of 1962.
7. The period of limitation for bringing suit for compensation for libel and slander, as set by Articles 24 and 25, is one year and commences when the libel is published or when the words are spoken.
As alleged by the appellant libel and slander was committed by the respondents' functionaries on the 19th April, 1971, when the writ petition was argued before this Court. He could have brought suit for damages for libel and slander latest by the 19th April, 1972. His suit, which he filed on the 30th June, 1972, was time-barred.