Hima Kohli JUDGMENT
Hima Kohli, J.
1. The present application has been filed by the defendant/IIT Delhi under Order VII Rule 11 CPC praying inter alia that the suit be rejected on the ground that the same is barred by limitation.
2. The plaintiff, who was admitted in the defendant/Institute in the year 2010, as a student of M.Tech. (Laboratory Science Course), has instituted the present suit against the defendant/IIT, claiming damages of ` 50 lacs alongwith interest on account of 100% loss of vision with sustained chemical burn injuries suffered by her during the practicals held in the chemistry laboratory and attributed to the defendant on account of their alleged negligence when an explosion had taken place in the Institute's premises on 27.06.2011.
3. The only plea raised by the learned counsel for the defendant for seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is that the suit is barred by limitation for the reason that the plaintiff is asking for compensation in respect of an accident that had occurred on 27.06.2011 and the period of limitation for instituting a suit as prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963 is three years from the date of the occurrence of the accident, which would have expired on 26.06.2014, whereas the plaintiff had instituted the present suit on 30.05.2014, and on the said date, the plaint was not supported by an affidavit duly verified by the plaintiff, as prescribed under Order VI Rule 15(4) of the CPC and any re-filing of the plaint after 26.06.2014, would make the suit barred by limitation.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-applicant/plaintiff had contended that the plaintiff had suffered serious eye injuries that had resulted in 100% loss of vision and the said incident had occurred on 27.06.2011, and the present suit was filed on 30.05.2014, i.e., well within the period of limitation of three years. He submitted that the plaint when filed on 30.05.2014, was duly signed and verified by the plaintiff and it was accompanied by her affidavit. However, the affidavit could not be got attested from the Oath Commissioner since 30.05.2014 was the last working day before the High Court was to close for the summer vacations that were to commence on 01.06.2014 and it so happened that on the said date, the Oath Commissioners had left the court premises by 3 PM. As there was no time left for approaching a nearby Oath Commissioner for getting the affidavit attested at the time of filing the suit, the same had to be filed without attestation particularly since the period of limitation was to expire during the summer vacations. On the Court reopening after the summer vacations on 01.07.2014, the objections raised by the Registry were cured and the affidavit filed in support of the plaint was got attested by the Oath Commissioner on 28.07.2014, when the plaintiff, who has lost her vision completely and is presently residing with her husband at Meerut, UP, had visited Delhi and affixed her thumb impression at the required places.
5. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that given the aforesaid facts, it cannot be argued that the suit was filed beyond the period of limitation because substantial compliance of the provisions of the CPC and the Delhi High Court Rules governing filing of civil suits on the original side were made. He concluded by stating that the provisions of Order VI Rule 15(4) of the CPC that require the person verifying the pleadings to furnish an affidavit in support of the said pleadings, are not mandatory in nature but only directory and such a defect being a curable one, once the same is cured, it relates back to the ........