MOHAN LAL Vs. WATTAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Una, H.P. dated 27.09.2014, passed in Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2014.

(2.) KEY facts, necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the respondent -plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,20,000/ - alongwith interest @ 12% per annum as compensation against the appellants -defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants for the convenience sake). According to the plaintiff, he is a businessman and doing work of interior decorator at Chandigarh. Village Bathari is his native place. He visits his village occasionally. Defendant No. 2 Sudesh Kumari, without any locus standi had filed civil suit bearing No. 176/2002 against the plaintiff and his brother Sh. Pritam Dass. The plaintiff and his brother had engaged the counsel and faced trial for more than five years. The defendant No. 2 got the civil suit dismissed as withdrawn on 1.5.2007. The defendants also instituted civil suit bearing No. 25 of 2007 for permanent injunction against the plaintiff and his brother Sh. Pritam Dass. On 3.4.2007, the summons was served upon the plaintiff. The civil suit was also dismissed for non -prosecution on 17.11.2008. According to the plaintiff, he and his brother had been dragged into unnecessary litigation. They had to face the trial for more than six years. The plaintiff had purchased Kh. No. 2407/1 and 2408 through sale deed alongwith Tatima -Naksha and these khasra numbers were not the subject matter to be partitioned.

(3.) THE replication was filed by the plaintiff. The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), II, Una, framed the issues on 5.8.2011. The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), II, Una, dismissed the suit on 9.9.2013. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Una, against the judgment and decree dated 9.9.2013. The learned District Judge, Una allowed the appeal on 27.9.2014 and decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 50,000/ - as compensation for malicious prosecution. Hence, this regular second appeal.