GHANSHYAM DASS RASTOGI Vs. A N SYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for revision from the order of the Subordinate Judge granting permission to A. N. Sayal, plaintiff-respondent, to bring a suit in forma pauperis for recovery of Rs. 1,03,650/-as damages for malicious prosecution against Sub Inspector Narinder Nath and the petitioner, Seth Ghanshyam Dass.

(2.) The facts may be briefly narrated. Ghanshyam Dass petitioner instituted a criminal complaint under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against A. N. Sayal at Lucknow. A process was issued to A. N. Sayal who, however, evaded service and had ultimately to be declared a proclaimed offender. Proceedings under Sections 87 and 88 of the Criminal Procedure Code were taken and eventually on 14th of October 1950, Dewan Narinder Nath went to the house of Sayal to effect service of the process. At that time, it is said that Sayal did not want Narinder Nath to arrest him and offered a bribe of Rs. 500/- to the police officer for being left alone. As a result of this incident, Sayal was subsequently prosecuted for an attempt to bribe, but was acquitted on 13th of February 1955, after the court had given him the benefit, of the doubt. Sayal was stirred into action by the order of the criminal Court acquitting him. He brought a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,03,650/- as damages for malicious prosecution in the bribery case and alleging that he was not in a position to pay the court-fee, applied to sue as a pauper under Order 33 of Civil Procedure Code. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court granting this application, Ghanshyam Dass has filed a petition for revision in this Court.

(3.) A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Raghbir Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent that no revision is competent in this case. Reliance has been placed on the Supreme Court decision in Keshardeo Chamria v. Radha Kissen Chamria, 1953 SCR 136 : (AIR 1953 SC 23). It has not been disputed that the Subordinate Judge has passed an order in exercise of jurisdiction which is undoubtedly vested in him. According to the Supreme Court authority. "Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, applies to matters of jurisdiction alone, the irregular exercise or non-exercise of it or the illegal assumption of it, and if a subordinate Court had jurisdiction to make the order it has made and has not acted in breach of any provision of law or committed any error oi procedure which is material and may have affected the ultimate decision, the High Court has not power to interfere, however profoundly it may differ from the conclusions of that Court on questions of fact or law." Mr. Raghbir Singh states that the finding of Court below is based on evidence on which it may be possible to have a difference of opinion. This is not sufficient to provide a foothold for interference of this Court on the revisional side. This is true as far as it goes. It has, however, to be seen whether in coming to the conclusion which it did, the trial Court committed an error in procedure which affected its ultimate decision. Chief Justice Mahajan, who delivered the judgment of the Court, cited with approval the observation of Bose J. In Narayan Sonaji v. Sheshrao Vithoba, AIR 1948 Nag 258 (FB), wherein it was said that: