Appellant herein filed a suit for damages against the State of Kerala inter alia on the premise that he had lost an eye having been a victim of violence of political vendetta as he had suffered facial injury as a result of throwing of an acid bulb on his face.
The State denied and disputed its vicarious liability for payment of any damages suffered by the appellant.
The said appeal was dismissed by the High Court by a judgment and decree dated 13.9.2002 inter alia holding that the suit was rightly held to be barred by limitation.
Appellant had number established that the Police was duty bound to give protection to him.
The suit was dismissed by the learned subordinate Judge Cherthala by a judgment and decree dated 30.7.1991 inter alia holding The suit was barred by limitation.
The said appeal was also allowed to be filed by him as an indigent person.
It was furthermore directed Hence we find that the above appeal is devoid of any merits.
An appeal was preferred thereagainst in the year 1994.
He filed a suit for damages in the year 1988.
A miscellaneous application was filed by the appellant in the said suit purported to be for clarification of the said direction of the High Court companytained in its judgment dated 13.9.2002.
Therefore the appeal is dismissed companyfirming the judgment and decree passed by the lower companyrt.
Interpretation of the provisions of Order XXXIII Rule 10 and Order XXXIII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended in the State of Kerala is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 11.7.20003 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in CMP No.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The said suit was filed in terms of Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure as he claimed himself to be an indigent person.
2536 of 2007 Arising out of S.L.P. C No.
13885 of 2004 B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
The persons accused of throwing acid bulb on the face of the appellant, however, stood acquitted by a judgment dated 18.2.1981.
1323 of 2003 in A.S. No.
156 of 1994.
