B NITYANAND MATHUR Vs. LALA BABU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal against a decree of the lower appellate Court, confirming a decree of the Court of first instance dismissing the claim. The appeal arises out of a suit brought by plaintiff against four defendants for Rs. 2,000 damages for malicious prosecution. Both the lower Courts have held that no action would lie and there, fore have dismissed the suit. The facts of the case are somewhat unusual and it is desirable that they should be stated in some detail : The plaintiff is a Mukhtar practising at Sambhal in the district of Moradabad. The defendant Ramji Mal is a zamindar in the district and the defendant Babu Ram is his son and mukhtar-i-am. The defendants Dhanna and Narpat are two tenants of Ramji Mal.

(2.) It is admitted that the plaintiff and the defendants Ramji Mal and Babu Ram had been on hostile terms for some time and it is the case for the plaintiff that Ramji Mal and Babu Ram conspired together with the two other defendants to ruin the plaintiff. It appears that Ramji Mal had filed a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent against the tenant Narpat, in the Court of the Tahsildar of Sambhal. On the date fixed for the hearing of that suit Dhanna went to the plaintiff and engaged him to conduct the suit. At this interview Dhanna posed as Narpat and the plaintiff was under the impression that he was being instructed by the real defendant Narpat. He prepared a written statement which he was about to file, but on that day for some reason or another the case was not taken up. The reader of the Court however obtained Dhanna's thumb impression on the order sheet. The next day the plaintiff filed his written statement and his mukhtarnama and eventually a day was fixed for the final disposal of the case. On the suit coming up for hearing no one appeared to defend it and consequently the plaintiff informed the Court that he had no further instructions in the case. The suit was decreed ex parte in favour of Ramji Mal, but shortly afterwards Narpat, the real defendant, appeared in Court. He stated that he had never engaged the plaintiff to act for him and had never given instructions that a written statement should be filed. Narpat admitted the claim which was decreed.

(3.) On 1 February 1932 Ramji Mal, through a vakil, made an application to the High Court under Section 13, Legal Practitioners Act, praying that action should be taken against the plaintiff for professional misconduct. This application was supported by an affidavit sworn by the defendant Babu Ram as mukhtar-i-am of Ramji Mal setting out the facts of the case. The High Court sent the case to the learned District Judge of Moradabad for enquiry and report. The latter conducted an enquiry and ultimately reported that the plaintiff was entirely innocent of any professional misconduct and that in fact he had been tricked by Babu Ram and Ramji Mal. The learned District Judge found that Dhanna had been sent to the plaintiff with a view of making this false charge of professional misconduct at a later stage. The High Court accepted the finding of the learned District Judge and dismissed the application. After the termination of these proceedings in favour of the plaintiff, he instituted the suit claiming damages for malicious prosecution. He further instituted certain criminal proceedings against Ramji Mal and Babu Ram, but these proceedings were dismissed and as a result of them Ramji Mal brought a cross suit against the plaintiff olaiming damages for malicious prosecution. This suit by Ramji Mal was dismissed by the learned Munsif and hia decision was upheld on appeal to the lower appellate Court. No appeal has been preferred against that decree and consequently the facts of that case need not be further considered.