BASANT RAI Vs. LALA GANGA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have arisen out of one suit brought by Ganga Ram and Piare Lal against Jaswant Rai, Basant Rai and Abir Chand for damages for malicious prosecution. The Court of first instance decreed Rs. 550 as damages to the plaintiff Piare Lal against the principal defendant Jaswant Rai and his servant Abir Chand. Piare Lal's claim was dismissed as against Basant Rai. Ganga Ram's claim was dismissed against all the three defendants. Three appeals were preferred in the lower appellate Court, one jointly by Ganga Ram and Piare Lal (the former claiming damages and the latter claiming enhanced damages), the second by Jaswant Rai and Abir Chand impugning the decree of the first Court so far as it awarded damages to Piare Lal, and the third by Basant Rai claiming costs against the plaintiffs whose suit had been dismissed as against him. By a consolidated decree, dated 8 March 1927, the claim of both the plaintiffs was decreed against all the three defendants, with the result that the appeals of Jaswant Rai and Abir Chand and of Basant Rai were dismissed, while that of the plaintiffs Ganga Ram and Piare Lal was decreed almost in its entirety. In all Rs. 1,100 were decreed to them as damages against all the three defendants jointly.

(2.) Three second appeals were preferred to this Court, which, by an order dated 11 April 1929, reversed the judgment of the lower appellate Court and remanded the three appeals to it for decision in accordance with the directions therein contained. The lower appellate Court then dismissed the appeal of the defendants Jaswant Rai and Abir Chand as also that of the defendant Basant Rai, and decreed the appeals of the plaintiffs Ganga Ram and Piare Lal, awarding Rs. 1,250 as damages against two only of the defendants, namely, Jaswant Rai and Abir Chand, exempting Basant Rai, as had been done by the Court of first instance. Three appeals on the lines of those preferred in the lower appellate Court have been filed in this Court and will be disposed of by this judgment.

(3.) Jaswant was a contractor from the Cantonment Committee for collecting certain rents. The prosecution in respect of which damages are claimed by the plaintiffs was started in consequence of two letters addressed to the Executive Officer, Agra Cantonment, and one formal complaint made to a Magistrate of that district. The first letter, dated 3 June 1925, sent by the defendant Basant Rai, acting for Jaswant Rai, to the Executive Officer, Cantonment, complained that a number of persons, including Piare Lal, did not pay rent and obstructed the contractor in the realization of rents assigned by the Cantonment Committee to its contractor, Jaswant Rai. No action was taken on this letter and no further notice need be taken of that letter. On 15 June 1925, the defendant Abir Chand filed a complaint before a Magistrate complaining that the plaintiff Piare Lal, "proprietor of the firm Shiv Lal Ganga Ram," had obstructed the complainant's master, Jaswant Rai, in collecting rent, which he was entitled to collect as the contractor of the Cantonment Committee. The Magistrate ordered process to be issued against Ganga Ram and Piare Lal, and the case was fixed for hearing on 18 July 1925. It should be noted that the only accused named in the complaint was Piare Lal but as he had been described as the proprietor of the firm Shiv Lal Ganga Ram, summonses were issued not only to Piare Lal but also to Ganga Ram, another partner in the firm. On the date fixed for hearing the complainant Abir Chand did not appear, and the complaint was dismissed. Subsequently on 15 August 1925, Abir Chand wrote a letter to the Executive Officer, Cantonment, repeating his complaint against Piare Lal describing him as before. The Executive Officer thereupon prosecuted the plaintiffs Ganga Ram and Piare Lal for an offence under Section 249, Cantonment Code, (obstructing the contractor of the Cantonment Committee in the realization of rent). The plaintiffs Ganga Ram and Piare Lal were eventually acquitted after a trial lasting for some hearings. They instituted the suit which has given rise to this appeal on 26 January 1926. alleging that they had never obstructed Jaswant Rai and his servants in collecting rents and that their prosecution was the outcome of ill feeling and malice which existed between Jaswant Rai on the one hand and the plaintiffs on the other. The Court of firs; instance decreed the claim of the plaintiff Peare Lal to the extent of Rs. 550, as already stated, and dismissed that of the plaintiff Ganga Ram in toto on the ground that he had not been prosecuted by any of the defendants. The lower appellate Court however decreed Ganga Ram's claim also and its decree is assailed in second appeal by the defendants.