Limitation and refiled plaints: original presentation date controls when curable defects are later removed.

A plaint presented within the limitation period does not become time-barred merely because the Registry returns it for curing curable defects and it is refiled later. In a libel damages suit, the relevant one-year limitation ran from publication, but the original presentation was within time. Defects relating to court fee, attestation of copies, and translation requirements were procedural and did not alter the date of institution. The plaint was therefore treated as filed on its original presentation date, and the limitation objection failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint, presented within the limitation period but returned for curing defects and refiled later, was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The suit was for damages for libel, for which the relevant limitation period was one year from publication. The plaint was initially presented within that period. The defects pointed out by the Registry related to court-fee, attestation of copies, and translation requirements. The filing rules governing presentation and scrutiny of documents did not purport to extend the period of limitation or treat re-presentation after curing defects as the effective date of institution. A plaint presented within time does not lose that character merely because it is returned for removal of curable defects and later refiled.

Conclusion: The plaint was treated as filed on the date of its original presentation, and the suit was within limitation; the objection of limitation failed.

---