2025:HHC:7734 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.86/2023 Date of Decision: 24th March, 2025. Anil Kumar. .....Appellant. Versus Bidhi Singh …..Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Subhash Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prantap Sharma. For the Respondent: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashishta, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The present appellant has filed this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), whereby he has assailed the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Una in Civil Appeal No. 22-XIII Of 2022. By the said judgment and decree, the First Appellate Court had reversed the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No. III, Una, HP in Civil Suit No. 431/2013. 2. The present appeal arises from a civil suit filed by the appellant(plaintiff) against the respondent(defendant) before the trial court, seeking recovery of Rs. 2,00,000/- with 12% interest, which was subsequently decreed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. The plaintiff's case was based on allegations that on 18.05.2011 at about 9:45 PM, the respondent/defendant maliciously lodged a false FIR, i.e., FIR 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 2025:HHC:7734 No. 125/11 at Police Station Una, claiming that approximately at 8:00 PM on the fateful evening, while walking near Sohar Khad Bridge, he was hit by the present appellant/plaintiff, who was allegedly driving motorcycle bearing registration No.HP20C- 8288, in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which he got injuries. Thereafter, the appellant/plaintiff fled away from the scene. The appellant/plaintiff contended that this complaint was deliberately fabricated due to their pre-existing land dispute spanning over five years, during which the defendant had allegedly threatened his family members. 3. As a consequence of the FIR, the appellant/plaintiff was arrested and his motorcycle was impounded. He secured the bail after remaining in custody for about ten hours. The appellant/plaintiff, who had returned to India on leave after three years of employment abroad, incurred expenses of Rs.3,000/- for retrieving his motorcycle and lost three valuable days of his leave period. The police investigation subsequently revealed that the defendant's injuries were actually sustained from a fall involving motorcycle bearing No.HP20C-8956, driven by one Balwinder Singh. While the plaintiff was conclusively established to have been elsewhere at the material time, specifically traveling with his father to Una Hospital and the Police Station on his own motorcycle HP20C- 8288. This led to the filing of a cancellation report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una and the initiation of proceedings 3 2025:HHC:7734 against the respondent/defendant under Section 182 IPC for providing false information. 4. Replication to the written statement was filed by the plaintiff/appellant, wherein the contents of the plaint were reiterated and re-asserted and those of the written statement were denied and refuted. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 27.08.2013 by the learned trial court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of recovery of amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum as alleged ? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the Respondent is not maintainable in its present form? OPD. 3. Whether the Respondent has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD. 4. Whether the Respondent has not approached the court with clean hands ? OPD. 5. Relief. 5. After evaluating the evidence, the trial Court ruled in favour of the appellant/plaintiff and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 6. The respondent/defendant, aggrieved by this decision, had preferred an appeal challenging the impugned judgment as being contrary to law and facts. The grounds of appeal principally contended that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the evidence, misconstrued the plaintiff's testimony, while ignoring crucial defense evidence, and rendered findings based on conjectures rather than substantive proof. 7. The appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgement and decree passed by the trial court on the ground of limitation. 4 2025:HHC:7734 8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. 9. Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 casts a mandatory duty upon the Court to examine the question of limitation before adjudicating the merits of the case, irrespective of whether such a plea was taken by the parties or not. 10. The cancellation report Ext.PW4/B was prepared on 14.7.2011, terminating the prosecution against the plaintiff in FIR No. 125/11 dated 18.5.2011, while the suit was filed on 30.8.2012. As per the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation period for filing a suit for malicious prosecution is one year from the date of termination of prosecution, which in this case commenced on 15.7.2011 and expired on 15.7.2012. Since the appellant/plaintiff filed the suit on 30.8.2012, beyond the stipulated one-year period under Entry 74 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act read with Section 3, the suit was clearly barred by limitation and therefore not maintainable. No infirmity in this respect calling interference by this Court has been pointed out. 11. In view of the aforesaid, there arises no question of law, much less a substantial question of law for the consideration of the Court. Thus, in the case at hand, I am of the opinion that both the Courts below have given well-reasoned judgments. The same do not warrant any interference by this Court. 5 2025:HHC:7734 Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 24th March, 2025 (Tamana/Gaurav Rawat)