RAM NATH Vs. BASHIR-UD-DIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short point for decision in the present case is whether the Court below was justified in dismissing the plaintiff's suit for damages for malicious prosecution on the ground that the prosecution was not inspired by malice and was not destitute of any reasonable or probable cause.

(2.) THE parties to the litigation out of which this appeal has arisen are owners of two contiguous properties which were separated by a wall belonging to the defendant. On 19-9-1946 the defendant sent a registered notice to the plaintiff in which he complained that the plaintiff was endangering the safety of his wall by piling up bricks and other building materials against the wall and warned him that if his property sustained damage by reason of any act done by him, his agents or his labourers, the plaintiff would be held responsible for any loss that may be caused.

(3.) THE plaintiff paid no heed to this notice and at 10 O'clock on the night of 4-10-1946 the wall came down all of a sudden causing a certain amount of damage to a printing press which a tenant of the defendant had set up near the wall. The defendant reported the matter to the Police on the following day and filed a regular complaint on 10-1-1947, in this complaint he alleged that both the plaintiff and his 'munim' Mithan Lal had intentionally and mischievously piled up a large quantity of building material against the wall with the object of demolishing the wall and encroaching upon the land belonging to the defendant and that they had stolen the materials of the complainant's wall and brought the same to their own use. It was accordingly prayed that action be taken against them under Sections 427 and 379, Penal Code. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the guilt had not been brought home to the accused beyond reasonable doubt and ordered their discharge under Section 253, Criminal P. C. This was on 31-7-1947.