Find a Lawyer

‑‑‑S. 115‑‑Revision petition, filing of‑‑Requirements‑‑Person filing revision petition, held, was bound to furnish copies of pleadings and documents alongwith such petition‑‑Revision petition not documented in accordance with legal requirements, could not be regarded to have been properly filed.

Muhammad Amin v. Jogendra Kumar Bannerjee and others AIR 1947 P.C. 108 and Ah Fond v. Nam Kee A I R 1934 Nag. 75 rel.

‑‑‑Ss. 35, 35‑A & O.VII, R.11‑‑Damages claimed for false institution of civil suits‑‑Rejection of plaint for non‑disclosure of cause of action‑‑Validity of‑‑In absence of allegations that damages claimed had arisen to plaintiff by way of necessary and natural consequence of civil suits filed against him or that such action of defendant was not capable of being recompensed by order for costs which Trial Court had power to impose, such plaints, held, were rightly rejected

for want of disclosure of cause of action.‑‑{Damages].

‑ ‑‑‑S. 115‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑In absence of illegality or error of jurisdiction committed by Courts below, High Court declined to interfere in its revisional jurisdiction in decrees passed by such Courts.

Petitioner in person

]

The question of law involved in this Civil Revision is common with another Civil Revision No.405/ D of 1987, which are only two out of seven similar cases filed by the petitioner Sultan Ahmad Awan in person. All seven of them arise out of suits for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs.25,000 each, four of which were filed by him at Faisalabad and the remaining three were maintained at Lahore. This order will deal with the said two Civil Revisions.

2. The averment in this. case, brought by the petitioner against an Advocate Mr. Ghulam Muhammad Awan and one Waryam, is briefly that the latter being a tenant in one of his houses in Lahore Cantonment, he was ordered on 20‑11‑1979 to be ejected on account of default in payment of rent and in execution of the relevant order he had been put in possession of the house on 11‑12‑1980 whereafter his suit for recovery of Rs.2,119.35 was decreed against him by the Small Cause Court whereafter, on 4‑4‑1982, the defendant Advocate filed a false and frivolous suit against him on behalf of Waryam for recovery of damages of Rs.22,000 and he had been coming from Faisalabad to Lahore for defending the suit until 29‑2‑1984 when the suit was withdrawn and in this period he had suffered loss of his reputation for which he is entitled to be paid Rs.25,000 as damages.

3. The other suit was also filed by him against the same Advocate Mr. Ghulam Muhammad Awan, alongwith one Akhtar Ali, another tenant of his properties in Lahore Cantonment, with the averment briefly that, after taking possession from him on 11‑12‑1980 in execution of an order of ejectment, he had placed some articles in the house which were found on 13‑2‑1981 to have been stolen by the said tenant and others but since the local police had been heavily bribed by them, therefore, they did not take any action against them and, on 27‑11‑1982, the said Advocate filed a false and frivolous suit against the petitioner for recovery of Rs.22,000 as damages which was, however, withdrawn by him on 11‑12‑1984 whereby petitioner suffered a loss of his reputation for which he is entitled to be awarded damages of Rs.25,000 from the two defendants.

4. Plaints in both the suits were rejected under Order VII rule 11 of the C.P.C. by the learned Civil Judge Mr. K.M. Sohail by means of his identical orders passed on 30‑6‑1985 on the ground that therein no cause of action stands disclosed inasmuch as although an action about compensation for special damage suffered by a malicious civil litigation is maintainable in law, yet, a separate suit cannot lie with regard to ordinary damages which are open to be compensated by awarding ordinary or special costs.

5. Two appeals thereagainst filed by the petitioner having been dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge by means of a consolidated judgment dated 8‑9‑1985 by upholding the view of the trial Court on the authority of Muhammad Amin v. Jogendra Kumar Bannerjee and others A. I R 1947 P. C. 108, he has now come up to this Court in these two Civil Revisions which have been heard together.

6. These Civil Revisions were instituted by the petitioner originally on 8‑3‑1986 but being incomplete in many particulars, and having not even been properly documented they were returned to him alongwith his other five similar Civil Revisions for completion within three days but he refiled them on 6‑5‑1986 without removing all the objections. Office insisted upon the needful being done and again returned all the cases to him. The petitioner took the matter leisurely and slept over it until 25‑2‑1987 when he again filed all the seven cases together, with the necessary documents. Proviso to subsection (1) of section 115 of the C.P.C. enjoins an applicant for revision to furnish the copies of the pleadings and documents alongwith his revision petition, therefore, the revision petitions filed by the petitioner being not documented in accordance therewith could not be regarded to have been properly filed. Thus, these Civil Revisions can be considered to have been instituted only on 25‑2‑1987 against the impugned appellate decrees dated 8‑9‑1985. As such, they suffer from a delay of more than one year and the laches remain unexplained.

7. There is little doubt that the benefit provided by the remission of Court‑fee on the valuation of Rs.25,000 may have prompted the petitioner into filing his seven frivolous suits of such value and then also undertaking the inexpensive enterprises of filing seven appeals in the District Courts and even coming upto this Court in seven revision petitions without any just cause.

8. Be the above as it may, the view taken by the two Courts below is undoubtably correct inasmuch as it is supported by the above‑cited judgment of the Privy Council wherein it is laid down:‑

"The reason why the action does not lie for falsely prosecuting any ordinary civil action is that such a case does not necessarily and naturally involve damage to the party sued. A civil action which is false will be dismissed at the hearing. The defendant's reputation will be cleared of any imputations made against him and he will be indemnified against his expenses by the award of costs against his opponent. * The law does not award damages for mental anxiety or for extra costs incurred beyond those imposed on the unsuccessful party."

To the same effect was also Ah Fond v. Nam Kee A I R 1934 Nagpur 75 wherein it was held:‑

"It is a general rule of law‑ that a civil action though false and malicious in its institution, will not give rise to an action for damages. Ordinarily damage is not involved and the expense to which the defendant is put in resisting the suit is met by as order for costs. The test to be applied is whether the civil action complained of necessarily or naturally involved damage which could not be recompensed by an order for costs. If the action did necessarily or naturally involve such damage and was instituted falsely and maliciously the law provides a remedy and a suit for damages will be maintainable."

There is not even an allegation made by the petitioner in these cases that the alleged damage was such as had arisen to him by way of a necessary and natural consequence of the civil suits filed against him or that it was not capable of being recompensed by an order for costs which the Court concerned had the power to impose under section 35 or 35‑A of the C.P.C., therefore, plaints of the petitioner were rightly rejected for want of disclosure of cause of action.

9. There is no illegality or error of jurisdiction pointed out to have been committed by the Courts below in passing their decrees. There does not exist any case at all for interference.

10. Both the Civil Revisions are devoid of merit and being only frivolous, they are dismissed in limine.

A.A./S.117/L Revision dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.