KUSHAL PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for damages for malicious prosecution. The plaintiff had impleaded six defendants. The suit was dismissed by the trial court and the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decree.

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff the third respondent Assistant Registrar Co-operative had filed a complaint against the petitioner maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause. The other three defendants, namely, the Cooperative Officer, the Cooperative Inspector and the Deputy Registrar Cooperative were said to have maliciously made false reports to the State Government of which Sri Mohanlal, Gautam happened to be at the relevant time Minister concerned with the affairs of Coope rative Societies, It was alleged that the Assistant Registrar and filed the complaint on the orders of the State Government. On these allega tions the plaintiff had instituted the suit against all the six defendants. In the second appeal steps were not taken to serve notices on the Assis tant Registrar the Cooperative Inspector and the Deputy Registrar Co operative i.e. respondents nos. 3, 5, and 6, and the appeal was dismissed against them for non prosecution.

(3.) LEARNED counsel has on the basis of rulings cited by him tried to take the case out of test (b). The test however which is applicable in the present case is the test (a) and it will have to be seen whether the appeal can proceed applying that test. Clerk and Lindsell on Torts, Twelfth Edition, Paragraph 1695, gives the essentials of the tort of malicious prosecution.