1. ' The plaintiff has filed a suit for damages and compensation.
2. ' Briefly the facts of the case are that the defendant lodged F.I.R. Bearing 143 of 1993 at Police Station Chakiwara under sections 448, 504, 427 and 34, P.P.C. Stating therein that plaintiff alongwith two other unknown persons took over possession of the godown. The case proceeded since 29-12-1993 till 1-12-1999 and defendant and every tactic to delay the case and after protracted trial the learned Judicial Magistrate-VII, Karachi South acquitted the plaintiff and other two accused.
3. Against the above-raid order of acquittal the defendant filed Criminal Acquittal Appeal bearing No,60 of 1999 against the order dated 7-4-1999 which was dismissed by this Court and observed that 'it will also be appropriate to refer to his cross-examination wherein he admitted it to be correct that since 1991 he was not in possession of the godown in question. This cross-examination was recorded on 4-12-1998 and from the above statement by him it is established beyond any reasonable doubt that he had lodged a false and concocted F.I.R. When he submitted that on 29- 12-1993 he was present in his godown when respondent No,1 alongwith his two companions committed trespass in the godown and damaged the gunny bags containing food items and other articles in his godown inasmuch as according to his own version, he had been out of possession since 1991. The defendant attempted to drag the plaintiff in false cases. The defendant also filed criminal revision against an order passed by VIlth Judicial Magistrate on application under section 342, Cr.P.C. And same was also dismissed. It is now verdict of this Court which established that defendant lodged the F.I.R. With malicious intention and for ulterior motives. It is further pointed out that A judgment of this Court, dated 1-12-1999 is not challenged and same has attained finality and is holding the field. The defendant also moved an application under section 145(4), Cr.P.C. And the learned S.D.M. City Karachi South was pleased to attach the godown in question. The plaintiff challenged the order of S.D.M. Dated 6-12-1994 in criminal revision in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge South which was allowed. Against the said order of learned Sessions Judge the defendant filed Criminal Miscellaneous No,173 -of 1995 which was dismissed with the observation that continuance of the proceeding under the Criminal Procedure Code which are only meant to prevent the breach of peace would be unwarranted under the law. The defendant also filed Revision No,19 of 1999 in the Court of 5th Additional District Judge, Karachi South, which was dismissed for non-prosecution do 15-7-1999 and same was restored on 10-9- 1999 with the warning that applicant will pursue the matter diligently. The defendant also filed complaint against the plaintiff under sections 107, 117, Cr.P.C. Thereafter the defendant lost all criminal cases whereafter he again made complaint to the S.H.O. Police Station Chakiwara who refused to take any action after considering the complaint as without substance. The defendant filed private complaint against the plaintiff in the Court of VIIth Judicial Magistrate, Karachi South who dismissed the complaint in limine. The defendant filed criminal revision against the dismissal of complaint, which was heard and decided, by the VIIth Additional District Judge, Karachi South and the learned Additional District Judge was pleased to dismissed the appeal.
4. ' The plaintiff claims to have suffered huge losses of money and went through great torture and also remained in police lock-up from 29-12-1993 to 30-12-1993 in Crime No,143 of 1993. The plaintiff claims to have a substantial amount as lawyer's fees. He has further claimed special damages and general damages amounting to Rs,50,00,000. Written statement has been tiled by the defendant on 18-5-2004. Consent issues were framed by both the counsel which were adopted by Court. Thereafter an application was filed under Order XXVI, rules 2 and 311, C.P.C. Which is. Civil Miscellaneous Application No,7014 of 2002 for appointment of Commissioner for recording of evidence. It is further pointed out that one application Civil Miscellaneous Application No,996 of 2003 was field by the defendant under Order 7, rule 11(d), C.P.C. Read with section 3 of the Limitation Act of 1908 for rejection of the plaint.
5. ' I have heard the learned counsel at length it is agreed by both the sides that case was filed under F.I.R. No,143 of 1993 at Police Station Chakiwara under sections 448, 504, 427 and 34, P.P.C. This case was disposed of by the Judicial Magistrate 7th (South) and the accused was acquitted. The complainant thereafter filed an appeal which is Appeal No,60 of 1999 which was dismissed by this Court by order, dated 1-12-1997 whereafter the suit was filed on 25-9-2000. In the plaint plaintiff claimed malicious damages and compensation. According to the learned counsel for the defendant this suit should have been filed within one year under Article 23 of the Limitation Act.
6. Both the counsel have relied on certain case - law and it would be appropriate to look through the same as the arguments put forward is that the time should run from the date of the acquittal from the original Court or from the date of final termination of the proceedings either in revision appeal.
7. Article 23 of the Limitation Act reads as follows:-- {{TABLE}} "23. For compensation for one year a malicious prosecution. When the plaintiff is acquitted, or the prosecution is otherwise terminated. {{TABLE}} ' In the case of Messrs Marine Management Company v. Government of Pakistan and others reported in PLD 2000 Kar. 214, it was observed that acquittal meant acquittal from the trial Court or acquittal from Appellate Court.
8. ' In the case of conviction it was observed that the limitation of one year would commence from the date when the order of the Honourable Supreme Court was passed. It would be appropriate to appreciate that in this case the matter which was pending. Once the proceedings expired at the Honourable Supreme Court stage suit was filed within one year, learned Judge had given a finding that the suit was within time. In the case of B. Madan Mohan Singh v. B. Ram Sunder Singh reported in AIR 1930 All. 326 it was held that the prosecution wt uld end when the revision was disposed of . In the case of Mehtab son of Sh. Fareed v. Balaji, reported in AIR 1946 Nag. 46, the was of limitation had been taken up and the interpretation was given to the second portion of the Limitation Act under Article 23. It was observed that phrase termination of prosecution meant the final disposal. In the case of Bhikham Singh and others v. Darshan Singh reported in AIR 1942 Oudh. 498, it was held that the suit filed within one year of the High Court's order in revision was within the limitation.
9. ' In the case of Purshottam Vithaldas Shet v. Raoji Hari Athavle reported in AIR 1922 Born. 209 it was held that a suit for malicious prosecution would be considered within time from the date of discharge.
10. ' In the case of Daddeti Subbayya v. Mutyalu Kesavulu reported in 1945 Mad. 288, once again it was observed that suit for malicious prosecution would commence from the date of final disposal. In the case of Syed Israr Ali v. Mst. Ahmedi Begum and others reported in 1990 M LD 1834, it was held had that suit has to be filed within one year. The case of Muhammad Zubair Qureshi v. Munir Hussain Shirazi and 4 others reported in PLD 1991 Kar. 214, this case is not applicable. In this case suit was considered to be time-barred only on the ground that the plaintiff could not produce any evidence that the prosecution had not terminated.
11. It is clear in this case that criminal acquittal appeal filed in the High Court was disposed of on 1-12- 1999. Suit has been filed on 25-9-2000 therefore, the suit is within time. The application under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. Is accordingly dismissed.