TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 1266
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pleading: (i) that the plaintiff has been carrying on proprietorship firms namely M/s. Star Steel Polishing and Buffing Works and M/s. Akbar Polishing Works and is an income tax assessee; (ii) that the plaintiff, in the month of January, 2002, was repairing and constructing his house No.J-1746-47 Jahangirpuri, Delhi when a small portion of his balcony fell down in the night; however no harm was caused to any neighbour resident including family members of the plaintiff; (iii) that the defendant No.5 Mr. Niranjan Singh aforesaid, resident of H.No.J-1754, Jahangirpuri, Delhi however called the police and demanded examination of contents of cement used in the process of construction and to which the plaintiff agreed;....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....354/34 IPC on 16th July, 2002 against the plaintiff and two others of an incident which had not taken place; (xii) that the plaintiff was arrested in the aforesaid case and was kept in custody for about 45 days and where after he was released on bail; (xiii) that the plaintiff preferred Criminal Writ Petition No.19/2003 in this Court for transfer of investigation in the aforesaid two FIRs (FIR No.239/2002 & FIR No.452/2002) to an independent and impartial agency and vide order in which, the investigation was transferred to the District Investigating Unit North West; (xiv) that however in the meanwhile charge sheet had been filed by defendant No.4 S.I. Jaipal Singh aforesaid in connivance with the defendant No.5 an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... denying any mala fides and malice. 3. The defendant No.5 has also contested the suit by filing a written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff. 4. Needless to state that the plaintiff has filed replications to both the written statements. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 9th February, 2009: "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for recovery of Rs. 22 lakhs? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest, if so, on what amount, for what period and at what rate? OPP 3. Whether the acts of the defendants are protected under Section 138 of Delhi Police Act and whether the suit is barred under Section 140 of Delhi Police Act, if so, to what eff....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... addition thereto reference is made to: (A) Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan Vs. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble AIR 2003 SC 4567; and, (B) Nilabati Behera Vs. State of Orissa AIR 1993 SC 1960. 12. Though the defendants are ex parte, but the counsel for the defendants no.1 to 4 has filed copies following judgments:- (i) Sumer Chand Vs. Union of India 41 (1990) DLT 66; (ii) Balvinder Singh Sodhi Vs. Mahender Singh 70 (1997) DLT 472; and, (iii) Inspector Rajender Saini Vs. State 121 (2005) DLT 595. 13. Inspite of it being clearly observed, while reserving judgment that the suit was prima facie barred by time, the counsel for the plaintiff neither in is written submissions has adverted to the said aspect nor ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....compensation was given to all the defendants but the same remained un-replied except by the defendant No.5. Even though the notice dated 1st March, 2005 proved as Ex.PW-1/29 and got issued by the plaintiff to all the defendants does not claim to be under Section 80 of the CPC and it is not the averment in the plaint also, even if the said notice got issued on 1st March, 2005 i.e. before the expiry of the period of limitation, is to be treated as under Section 80 of the CPC and the period of two months thereof is excluded under Section 15(2) of the Limitation Act, the suit should still have been filed on or before 6 th May, 2005; but the same as aforesaid, has been filed on 10th May,2005. The suit is thus clearly barred by time and is liable....