Law: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)

Section: 2, 23

(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908) Arts. 2 & 23-Malicious prosecution-Limitation-Statute contain ing general as well as special provisions-Special provisions apply in preference to general provisions-Article 23 specifically dealing with cases of malicious prosecution, provisions of such Article apply in preference to general provisions of Art. 2. It is axiomatic that where a statute contains general as well as special!:, provisions, the special provisions are applicable in preference to the general provisions. Since there is a specific Article i e. Article 23, which deals with cases of malicious prosecution, its provisions shall have to be preferred to, the general provisions contained in Article 2. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908) Art. 23 - Malicious prosecution - Limitation - Plaintiff accused discharged but complainant going in revision-Limitation period for filing suit for damages for malicious prosecution-Starts from date of disposal of revision petition. Bhagat Raj v. Mt. Gurai Dulalya and another A I R 1938 All. 49 rel- (c) Crown Proceedings Act (English) S. 2-Liability of Crown (or State)-Tort-Malicious prosecution- Subject to exceptions mentioned in S. 2 of Crown Proceedings. Act of England, liability of Crown is coeval with that of any other employer-State can be sued in tort provided exceptions contained in S. 2 not attracted-State, held, not immune from attack in civil Court in proceedings based upon tort. The liability of the Crown is now the liability of any employer and the Crown would be liable to be sued in tort in all cases where an ordinary employer could to sued subject to the exceptions mentioned in the Crown Proceedings Act, section 2. Cases of other jurisdictions in which the converse has been held are no longer good law and there is, therefore, no difficulty in holding that there is no bar to the Government being sued in tort provided the exceptions mentioned in the above said Act are not attracted. There is no doubt that in the present case the exceptions are not attracted, therefore the contention that the Government was immune from attack in a civil Court in proceedings based upon tort is not well-founded. Peninsular and Oriental…