- (1.) BOTH these appeals raise common questions and are, therefore disposed of by a common judgment. Special Appeal No. 459/72 arises out of Civil Suit No. 956/1958 (105/59), whereas Special Appeal No. 581/72 arises out of Civil Suit No. 549/1958. Kanmal, who is the respondent in both these appeals, was the defendant in both the suits.
(2.) THE facts relating to the filing of the aforesaid suits are as under: Ramdhan (Appellant in Special Appeal No. 459/72) was a tenant of the respondent. Brij Lal (Appellant in Special Appeal No. 581/72) was tenant of Sheodayal, the brother of the respondent. On January 16, 1953 the respondent filed a complaint in respect of an offence under Section 323 I. P. C. , against appellants, Ramdhan & Brijlal, in the Court of Honorary Magistrate First Class Ajmer. In the aforesaid complaint, the respondent alleged that the appellants had given him a beating after the cycle on which two appellants were riding, had dashed with the cycle of the respondent. The Honorary Magistrate, First Class. Ajmer. by his order dated 19th June, 1956, dismissed the said complaint and acquitted both the appellants. Not satisfied with the order passed by the Magistrate, the respondent went up in revision and the said revision petition of the respondent was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer, by his order dated 22nd September, 1956, on the view that the said revision was not maintainable and that the respondent ought to have approached the High Court in accordance with the provisions of section 417 (3) Criminal Procedure Code (Old. ). Thereupon, the respondent filed a further revision petition before this Court, which was dismissed by order dated 2nd August, 1957, on the view that the remedy under Section 417 (3) Criminal Procedure Code (Old) was available to the respondent and further that there was no case for interference in revision with the orders passed by the Courts below. Thereafter, the suits giving rise to the present appeals were filed by the appellants against the respondent for recovery of damages for malicious prosecution. Civil Suit No. 956/1958 (105/59) was filed by the Appellant Ramdhan on 2nd August, 1958 in the Court of Civil Judge, Ajmer for the recovery of Rs. 800/-In the said suit, the Civil Judge, Ajmer on 11th March, 1961, passed a decree for Rs. 800/- with costs in favour of appellant Ramdhan. The respondent filed an appeal against the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Ajmer and the District Judge, Ajmer by his judgment & decree dated 13th July, 1964, partially allowed the said appeal of the respondent and reduced the amount of damages to Rs. 450/- Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Ajmer. respondent Kanmal filed a Regular Second Appeal in this Court, whereas appellant Ramdhan filed cross-objections. Civil Suit No. 549/58 was filed by the Appellant Brijlal on 2nd August, 1958, in the Court of Civil Judge, Ajmer for the recovery of Rs. 2, 100/as damages. In the said suit, a decree for Rs. 1,000/- was passed by the Civil Judge Ajmer on 29th August, 1961. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decree passed by the Civil Judge, Ajmer, the respondent filed an appeal and appellant Brijlal filed cross-objections. The said appeal and cross-objections were disposed of by the District Judge, Ajmer by his judgment and decree dated 13th July, 1964, whereby the appeal of the respondent was dismissed and the cross-objections of appellant Brijlal were partially accepted and the amount of compensation/damages was raised from 1,000/- to 1,050/ -. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Ajmer. the respondent filed a Regular Second Appeal in this Court and the appellant Brijlal filed cross-objections. Both the second appeals, referred to above, were disposed of, by the learned Single Judge by a common judgment dated November 30, 1971, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the appeals filed by the respondent and has dismissed the suits of both of the appellants, on the view that the suits aforesaide were barred by limitation. In view of his finding that the suits were barred by limitation, the learned Single Judge dismissed the cross-objections filed by the appellants in both the appeals. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the period of limitation for filing the suits for damages for malicious prosecution had commenced from the date of the acquittal of the appellants by the trial Court and the fact that revision petitions were filed by the respondent against the order of acquittal could not extend the period of limitation for filing the suit in as much as proceedings for revision could not be treated as continuation of the proceedings in the trial Court. The learned Single Judge has drawn a distinction between an appeal and a revision and has observed that if an appeal is filed against an order of acquittal, under Section 417 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, the period of limitation would have to be computed from the date of the decision in appeal. The learned Single Judge held that a revision petition stands on a different footing for the reason that in-sofar as an appeal is concerned, it is a continuation of the original proceeding, whereas a revision proceeding cannot be said to be continuation of the original proceedings.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the appellants have filed these Special appeals after obtaining the leave of the learned Single Judge under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. The main question which arises for consideration in these appeals, is as to whether in a case where the complainant files a revision petition against an order of an order of acquittal, the period of limitation for filing a suit for damages for malicious prosecution, has to be computed from the date of the order of acquittal or from the date of dismissal of the revision petition filed against the order of acquittal. The period of limitation for a suit for compensation for malicious prosecution was laid down in Article 23 of the Limitation Act, 1908 which reads as under :- Description of Suit Period of Limitation Time from which period begins to run For compensation For a malicious prosecution One Year When the plaintiff is acquitted or the prosecution is otherwise terminated ;