R P GOALA Vs. AMARPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application by the defendant against an order of the trial Court holding that it has jurisdiction to try the suit.

(2.) THE defendant is a resident of Dehradun. He filed a criminal complaint Against the plaintiff who is an officer in the Indian Air Force. When the summons of the criminal complaint was served the plaintiff was posted at Jodhpur. The summons was served at Jodhpur and the plaintiff had to attend the Court at Dehradun on numerous dates of hearing. On every date he bad to go from Jodhpur. At that time the plaintiff was undergoing a course of instruction in Control and Reporting school of the Air Force there. This course was necessary for his future promotion in accordance with the allegations made in the plaint. Further on account of the service of the summons and the pendency of the criminal case against him the plaintiff had to undergo mental agony at Jodhpur and also to undergo physical discomfort of travelling from Jodhpur to Dehradun on every, date of hearing. For these he has claimed special and general damages in the suit. The trial Court held that the Court at Jodhpur has jurisdiction to try the suit.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties I am satisfied that the decision is correct. As is clear from the allegations made in the plaint, according to the plaintiff part of the cause of action arose at Jodhpur. Further a malicious prosecution is in essence a malicious abuse of the process of the criminal court. If such abuse is made of the process of a criminal court in a particular place by serving that process upon the person who was maliciously prosecuted the wrong is done in the place where he is so served. This view was taken in the following decisions: