LAWS(ORI)-1991-12-3

GANESH DASH Vs. BAIKUNTHA ADABAR

Decided On December 02, 1991
Ganesh Dash Appellant
V/S
Baikuntha Adabar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendant No. 1 in a Money Suit No. 51 of 1973 in the Court of the Munsif, Bargarh is the appellant in this Court. There were altogether 11 defendants in the suit but the Courts below found no liability against 10 of them and relief claimed by the plaintiff in the suit for malicious prosecution was only allowed against defendant No. 1. In the suit, the plaintiff had claimed general damages of Rs. 1,000/ - and a special damage of another Rs. 1,000/ - with interest against the defendants for malicious prosecution but a sum of Rs. 250/ -was allowed by the Munsif as general damage and Rs. 750/ -, as special damage as against defendant No. 1 which was confirmed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bargarh in Money Appeal No. 5 of 1976.

(2.) THE allegation of the plaintiff in the suit is that there was dispute between the plaintiff and his relations in one hand and the defendants and some of the villagers on the other in respect of a house site. There were some criminal cases between the parties regarding the said house site and a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.PC was also initiated and that enraged the defendants and some of the Villagers who boycotted the plaintiff and some of his relations resulting the defendants ultimately to launch a criminal proceeding against the plaintiff According to the plaintiff, the other defendants instigated defendant No. 1 to launch a false criminal case under Section 436 IPC against the plaintiff before the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bargarh. The plaintiff was committed to the Court of Session to stand the trial being charged; under Section 436 IPC but after the trial, he was acquitted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bargarh and thereafter has filed, this case against defendant No. 1 and others for damage for, malicious prosecution and as already stated has succeeded in both the Courts below.

(3.) THE appeal is accordingly allowed but in the circumstances, the parties to bear their own cost of the Second Appeal.