RFA 17/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. GOEL THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY A.K. Goel, J This appeal has been preferred against the order of Civil Court dismissing the s uit as barred by limitation with reference to Article 74 of the schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. The suit of the appellant was for compensation for malici ous prosecution for which starting point of limitation is the date of acquittal or termination of prosecution. In the present case, it is undisputed fact that t he date of acquittal is 17.03.2004 which is the starting point for counting the period of one year stipulated under Article 74 of the Act. Admittedly, the suit was filed on 25.09.2006, which is more than one year of from 17.03.2004. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Only contention which has been put forward is that Limitation is a point of fac t and law and counsel for the plaintiff had sought adjournment which was not granted and the matter was prejudiced on account of his absence. We are unable to find any merit in the argument. When the starting point is spec ific date, as per column 3 of the schedule, there is no disputed question of fac t except the date itself which in the present case is undisputed. This being th e situation, absence of counsel has not caused any prejudice. Even after being g iven due opportunity, it has not been shown that the suit is not beyond one year of the date of acquittal. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is dismissed.