Regular Second Appeal No. 3034 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3034 of 2005 Date of Order: 30.07.2009 Subhash and another Appellants Versus Mufti Devi and others Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Kulwant Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sushil Bharadwaj, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The appellants challenge the judgments and decrees dated 04.06.2002 and 29.09.2004, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal and the Additional District Judge, Karnal, decreeing the suit filed by respondents no.2 and 3 and dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants. Krishan Kumar @ Siri Kishen was murdered by the appellants on the night intervening 23/24.07.1991. Vide judgment dated 13.03.1993 they were convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The plaintiff/respondents, the widow and minor children of Krishan Kumar @ Siri Kishen filed a suit for damages alleging that as the appellants had murdered Krishan Kumar @ Siri Kishen, they were liable to pay damages of Rs.2,00,000/-. The appellants filed a written statement denying their Regular Second Appeal No. 3034 of 2005 -2- involvement in the murder of Krishan Kumar and pleaded that through their conviction and sentence by the Sessions Court had been upheld by the High Court, the matter was pending in a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, the respondents are not entitled to any damages. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues and called upon the parties to lead evidence. "1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover a sum of Rs.2 lacs as damages on account of untimely death/murder of Krishan Kumar @ Siri Kishan as alleged?OPP 2) Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file the present suit?OPD 3) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is time barred?OPD 4) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 5) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 6) Whether the criminal proceedings against defendant have not become final, if so to what effect?OPD 7) Relief." After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the trial court held that the suit was time barred with respect to Murti Devi, whereas it is within time with respect to respondents no.2 and 3 as they were minors. On the question of compensation, the trial court computed an annual Regular Second Appeal No. 3034 of 2005 -3- dependency of Rs.1,000/- per month and after applying a cut of 1/3rd, the damages payable to Murti Devi and respondents no.2 and 3 were assessed as Rs.1,44,000/-. On account of the dismissal of the suit with respect to Murti Devi, Rs.96,000/- was awarded to respondents no.2 and 3 along with interest @ 12% per annum from 30.08.1996 and @ 6% per annum from the date of the judgment till realization . Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the appellants and Murti Devi filed separate appeals. The Additional District Judge, Karnal, vide judgment and decree dated 29.09.2004 dismissed both the appeals affirming the compensation awarded to respondents no.2 and 3 and the dismissal of the suit with respect to Murti Devi. Counsel for the appellants submits that the only substantial question of law that arises for consideration is that as the cause of action i.e. the murder of Krishan Kumar, is common to all the respondents the suit could have been held to be within time with respect to respondents no.2 and 3 when it has been dismissed as time barred with respect to Murti Devi, their mother. It is submitted that as things stand today a part of the common cause of action has been held to be valid, a course not permissible in law It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed and the suit be dismissed in its entirety. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963 entitles to a minor to file a suit within three years of his attaining majority and, therefore, the courts below did not commit any error in holding that the suit was within time with respect of respondents no.2 and 3, who are minors. Regular Second Appeal No. 3034 of 2005 -4- I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgments and decrees and the question of law urged by counsel for the appellants. As the impugned judgments do not suffer from any error of law or of jurisdiction, I find no reason to interfere. Respondents no.2 and 3 are admittedly minors. The suit on their behalf has been filed through their mother. As per the provisions of Section 6 of the Limitation Act, the limitation for a minor to seek redress, commences from the date he attains majority and then continues to run for a period of three years. The argument that as Murti Devi's suit was dismissed as barred by time the suit should have been dismissed in its entirety is misplaced as it disregards the provisions of Section 6 of the Limitation Act . As a result, the courts below did not commit any error while holding that the suit filed by respondents no.2 and 3 was within time. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, as the impugned judgments and decrees does not suffer from any error of law or of jurisdiction, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. July 30, 2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE