RAMESH PATHANIA Vs. SURAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since, the aforementioned RFAs, as well as, the, cross objections, arise from, a common verdict, pronounced by the learned Addl. District Judge, Solan, H.P., upon, Civil Suit No. 24-S/1 of 1995/94, hence, they are, all amenable for a common verdict, being rendered thereon.

(2.) Both the afore RFAs bearing RFA No. 230 of 2008, and, RFA No. 253 of 2008, stand directed, against a verdict pronounced by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, upon, Civil Suit No.24/S/1 of 1995/94, (i) wherethrough, compensation amount, borne in a sum of Rs.2,15,000/- along with costs, stood determined, vis-avis, the plaintiff, arising from the defendants, maliciously prosecuting, harassing, humiliating, and, diminishing, his reputation in society, (ii) and, liability for liquidation, of, the afore compensation amount, was, jointly, and, severally fastened upon, defendant No.1, and, upon, defendant No.2. Moreover, through, cross objections, bearing CO No. 319 of 2009, as, stand instituted within RFA No.230 of 2008, hence, therethrough, the crossobjector/plaintiff, seeks enhancement, of, compensation amount, as, determined, vis-a-vis, him, and, obviously beyond the one, as, is assessed, vis-a-vis, him under, the impugned verdict.

(3.) The commission of tort, of, malicious prosecution, against the plaintiff, by, co-defendants, (i) is, rested, upon, co-defendant No.2, without any lawful authority, ingressing into the homestead, of, the plaintiff, (ii) and, his making unlawful seizure, of, timber stacked therein, (iii) and, thereafter his unlawfully arresting the accused, and, parading him, in, the bazar, (iv) whereupon, his status being diminished in the society, (v) and, all being preeminently sparked, from, the Investigating Officer concerned, making a proposal, for, closing the investigations, against, the plaintiff, and, the afore proposal also being accepted, by, the learned trial Court concerned, (vi) thereupon, all the afore misfeasance(s), and, malfeasance(s) ascribed, vis-a-vis, co defendant No.2, being ipso facto construable, hence, to be proven, (vii) and, it is further pleaded that hence all the afore misdeeds or misdoings, rather acquiring, the, taints of invention, and, also being ingrained with malafides, hence, the plaintiff being entitled, to, recovery of the averred amount, as, monetary damages, given his being maliciously prosecuted, hence, by the defendants.