Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramji Lal And Another vs Ram Niwas And Others on 18 September, 2012
Author: L.N.Mittal
Bench: L.N.Mittal
RSA No.4572 of 2010 -1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.4572 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 18.9.2012
Ramji Lal and another
..Appellants.
Vs.
Ram Niwas and others
..Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL
Present: Mr. J.P.Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.
L.N.MITTAL, J. (Oral)
This is second appeal by plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and legal representatives of plaintiffs No.3 and 4.
Plaintiffs claimed compensation of Rs.30,000/- for their malicious prosecution at the hands of defendants/respondents. It was alleged that false FIR No.63 dated 7.8.1982 was lodged by defendant No.3 Ram Niwas against the four plaintiffs and others. All of them were acquitted in the criminal case.
Lodging of FIR was admitted by the defendants. However, other averments made by the plaintiffs were controverted. It was denied that there was malicious prosecution of the plaintiffs.
Learned trial court decreed the plaintiffs' suit for recovery of Rs.30,000/- along with interest. However, first appeal preferred by RSA No.4572 of 2010 -2- defendants No.2 and 3 has been allowed by learned lower Appellate Court and thereby suit filed by the plaintiffs has been dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, this second appeal has been filed.
I have heard counsel for the appellants and perused the case file.
Plaintiff No.3 Sultan died during the pendency of the suit. His legal heirs were impleaded as his legal representatives. However, cause of action to claim damages for malicious prosecution was personal cause of action and therefore, on the death of plaintiff No.3, the right to sue did not survive to his legal representatives.
In addition to the aforesaid, none of the plaintiffs appeared in the witness box. Only Ramji Lal, one of the LRs of Sultan plaintiff No.3, appeared in the witness box. However, Ramji Lal had also no knowledge of the prosecution of the plaintiffs and his testimony was impeached in cross examination.
There is no explanation as to why plaintiffs No.1, 2 and 4 did not appear in the witness box. Consequently, adverse presumption arises against the plaintiffs. To claim damages for malicious prosecution, it was essential for the said plaintiffs or at least one of them to appear in the witness box. Consequently, for their non-appearance in the witness box, plaintiffs have been rightly non-suited by the lower appellate Court.
In addition to the aforesaid, there is also no cogent evidence to depict that prosecution of the plaintiffs was malicious. Mere acquittal in the criminal case would not give rise to interference or presumption that the RSA No.4572 of 2010 -3- prosecution was malicious. For this reason also, the plaintiffs are not entitled to compensation.
In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in this second appeal. Suit of the plaintiffs has been rightly dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. Finding of the lower Appellate Court in this regard is not shown to be perverse or illegal or based on misreading or mis-appreciation of evidence. There is no ground to interfere with the same. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for adjudication in this second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine.
( L.N.MITTAL ) JUDGE 18.9.2012 Meenu