TATIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner/defendant is aggrieved against the order dated 9. 5. 2006 by which the trial court decided issue no. 5a about limitation against the petitioner and held that the respondent/plaintiff's suit is within the period of limitation. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/ respondent filed a suit claiming compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs against the defendant/petitioner after paying court fees of Rs. 50,065/- which is provided for ordinary civil suit for compensation. The plaintiff/ non-petitioner in the suit alleged that on 24. 2. 2000 at about 8:30 PM, the defendant/petitioner with an intention to kill the plaintiff fired 3 shots upon the plaintiff causing injury to the plaintiff for which FIR was lodged on 24. 2. 2000 under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. After investigation, challan was filed against the petitioner. The petitioner was convicted by Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track), Hanumangarh vide judgment dated 26. 11. 2002 and held him guilty under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him for 10 years imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 6,000/- and also awarded sentence of 3 years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Because of the injuries, the plaintiff had to take treatment from Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, Punjab. The details of grave and serious injuries have been given in the plaint and further, it has been mentioned how the plaintiff remained under treatment and suffered several disablements. The defendant submitted written statement and denied the allegations. Issues were framed by the trial court on 21. 2. 2004 and thereafter an additional issue no. 5a was framed on 18. 4. 2006 on the plea taken by the defendant that the suit is liable to be dismissed as barred by time. It appears from the written statement that the objection of bar of limitation against the suit was raised by the petitioner only by saying that the suit is barred by time. The petitioner submitted an application before the trial court and requested that since the objection about limitation is pure question of law, therefore, the issue of limitation may be decided as a preliminary issued.
(3.) BEFORE the trial court, it was contended by the petitioner/defendant that the plaintiff's suit is under the provisions of Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (for short 'the Act of 1855') and for such suit under the Act of 1855, the period of limitation for filing the suit is only one year from the date of cause of action. In the present suit, according to the plaintiff himself, the cause of action accrued on 24. 2. 2000 and the suit was filed on 24. 2. 2003. The trial court decided the issue in favour of the plaintiff after holding that any suit by any injured person is a suit on the basis of general civil law and not and cannot be under the provisions of Act of 1855. For suit under general law for compensation because of personal injury, no specific period of limitation has been prescribed, therefore, as per Article 113, the period of limitation is three years and since the suit has been filed within three years period, therefore, the suit is within the period of limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that this Court in the case of Rajasthan State Electricity Board vs. Dharampal Singh reported in 2000 DNJ (Raj.) 42 held that the suit claiming compensation by injured person is also maintainable under the provisions of Act of 1855. In view of the above, the period of limitation applicable to the present suit is one year and not as provided under Article 113 of the Limitation Act. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the plaintiff filed suit for compensation under general law and not under the Act of 1855. It is also submitted that it is nowhere mentioned in the plaint that the plaintiff is claiming compensation under the Act of 1855. Not only this, but that was not the plea taken by the defendant in his written statement or in his application when the objection about limitation was raised by the defendant. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the suit by injured person for compensation is not maintainable under the Act of 1855. ;