(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Writ Petition No. 3032 of 2009 Balkrishna s/o. Jankirampant Deshmukh. .. Petitioner. versus Udhav s/o. Vitthalrao Dhumal & 9 Others. .. Respondents. .................. Mr. B.S. Kudale, Advocate, for the petitioner. .................. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 22ND JUNE 2009. COURT’S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 23rd February 2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Majalgaon, in Special Civil Suit No. 1/2009, thereby rejecting the plaint filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. The petitioner was prosecuted for demolishing Maruti Temple. In the said prosecution, the petitioner came to be acquitted. The petitioner, therefore, filed Special Civil Suit No. 1/2009 for malicious prosecution. In the said suit, office objection was raised, that (2) the claim of the petitioner was barred by limitation. The office objection was accepted and the plaint was rejected. Hence, the present petition. 3. Mr. B.S. Kudale, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the trial court has grossly erred in rejecting the plaint without the evidence being led on behalf of the parties. He relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this court in the case of Canbank Financial Services Ltd. Vs. V.B. Desai & another [2002(5) Mh.L.J. 355]. 4. Rule 11(d) of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, reads thus : "Rejection of plaint - The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases : (a) ......................................... (b) ........................................ (c) ........................................ (d) where the suit appears from the stagement in the plaint to be barred by any law. " 5. The petitioner came to be acquitted on 22nd December 2006. The suit was filed on 9th January 2009. The suit is for payment of compensation for malicious prosecution. The limitation provided under Article 74 of the Limitation Act is one year. In that view of the matter, it can be seen that upon bare reading of the plaint itself, the claim was barred (3) by law of limitation. 6. In so far as the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this court, in the case of Canbank Financial Services Ltd., is concerned, in the said case, for deciding as to whether the claim was within time or not, it was necessary that certain facts were to be proved and disproved and in that eventuality the learned Single Judge has held that unless evidence was led, issue of limitation cannot be decided. 7. In the present case, the cause of action would be from the date of acquittal of the present petitioner. Since the suit is filed beyond the prescribed limitation, no perversity could be found with the approach adopted by the trial court, so as to warrant interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ...................... bgp/wp3032