BALDEV PRAKASH Vs. ROOP CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Second Appeal has come up for disposal of substitution application moved by the appellant under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC alleging therein that as the sole respondent Roop Chand had expired on 24th July 1996 at Jodhpur therefore his legal representatives disclosed in paragraph 1 of the substitution application be substituted in his place.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for disposal of the present substitution application are that this appeal arises out of a suit for damages on account of malicious prosecution filed by the appellant Baldev Prakash against the deceased respondent Roop Chand for Rs. 10,000/-. According to plaint averments the defendant Roop Chand lodged FIR against the plaintiff-appellant for an offence u/s 379 IPC by making the allegation that on 14.3.1979 the plaintiff stole away a pipe. The plaintiff-appellant alleged in his plaint that he remained in custody from 17.3.1979 to 19.3.1979. He claimed Rs. 9,500/- as general damages on account of mental agony and Rs. 500/- as special damages.

(3.) THE learned trial court decreed the suit on 30.7.1988 but on an appeal filed by the deceased defendant-respondent the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur allowed the appeal on 5.9.1992 and dismissed the suit for malicious prosecution.