BHANWARLAL BAPULAL Vs. FATESINGH PANNALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11th March, 1982, passed by the learned llnd Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Mandsaur, in Civil Original Suit No. 13-A of 1980.

(2.) THE appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,000/-by way of damages for malicious prosecution. The plaintiff's case was that on a report lodged by the defendant with the police that on 7th April 1972, the plaintiff and three other persons had entered into a conspiracy to assault the defendant and had intimidated him, the plaintiff and Gulam Mohammad, hakim and Akbar were charge sheeted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate first Class, Mandsaur for offences punishable under sections 506-B and 120-B. Indian Penal Code. It was further averred that the plaintiff and the other accused were convicted by the trial Court but were acquitted on appeal and the application for grant of leave preferred by the State against the order of acquittal was rejected by the High Court. The plaintiff further averred that the prosecution commenced at the instance of the defendant was malicious, with a view to blackmail the plaintiff and the plaintiff was entitled to recover from the defendant damages amounting to Rs. 11,000/-for malicious prosecution. The suit was resisted by the defendant inter alia on the ground that the plaintiff had not been falsely implicated in the criminal case and that the prosecution was not without any reasonable or probable cause. The defendant also denied that he was actuated by any malice. The defendant, therefore, contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to any amount by way of damages.

(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the issues framed by the trial Court and the findings given thereon are as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_276_MPLJ_1984Html1.htm</FRM> In view of the aforesaid findings, the triad Court partly decreed the plaintiff's suit and held that the plaintiff was entitled to receive from the defendant a sum of Rs. 2,850/- by way of damages for malicious prosecution. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendant has preferred this appeal. Partly aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff has also preferred cross-objections,