1993 PLP 686 (MLD)
AMIR HUSSAIN KHAN — Petitioner Versus GHULAM AKBAR KHAN — Respondent
| Citation | 1993 PLP 686 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AMIR HUSSAIN KHAN — Petitioner Versus GHULAM AKBAR KHAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Malicious prosecution, (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 686 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Malicious prosecution, (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 686 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 686 (MLD) (AMIR HUSSAIN KHAN — Petitioner Versus GHULAM AKBAR KHAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Nazir Hussain Shah for Petitioner.
- Malik Noor Muhammad Awan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.35 & 35-A
Suit for damages for malicious prosecution--Maintainability of
Suit for damages for malicious prosecution in respect of a civil action, was not barred despite fact that provisions existed in law for awarding costs in said civil suit.
Successful party was not barred to file suit for damages for malicious prosecution, despite existence of provisions in law for awarding costs in suit.
S.115
Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of
No misreading or non-reading of evidence on part of Court below having been pointed out, judgment of Court below could not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction of High Court.
Judgment & Decree
(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
S.115
Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of
No misreading or non-reading of evidence on part of Court below having been pointed out, judgment of Court below could not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction of High Court. Syed Nazir Hussain Shah for Petitioner. Malik Noor Muhammad Awan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 12th December 1992. The facts leading to the filing of the present petition are The respondent filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.19,000 against the petitioner by way of damages. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court on 15-9-1990 for Rs.10,
526. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 6-6-1992. Hence this civil revision.
2. The case was admitted to consider as to whether or not, in view of Haji Muhammad Shafi v. Mst. Hamidan Bibi 1990 MLD 597 a separate suit for recovery of costs incurred by the opposite-party in defending previous suit or damages suffered by him on account of institution of suit was maintainable.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the abovementioned precedent case to submit that a separate suit for damages does not lie, inasmuch as there is a provision for grant of costs, in law, in the suit which is dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to Muhammad Akram v. Mst. Farman Bi PLD 1990 SC 28 and has submitted that the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has now authoritatively laid down that a suit for damages on malicious prosecution in respect of a civil action is not barred, despite the fact that there is provision in law for awarding costs in the said civil suit.
5. It appears that this authority, was not brought to the notice of his Lordship while deciding the precedent case, reported as Haji Muhammad Shah v. Mst. Hamidan Bibi 1990 MLD
597. Be that as it may, I am bound by A the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Muhammad Akram's case and I respectfully follow it. I find that the suit filed by the respondent was 8 maintainable and the learned trial Court had rightly assumed jurisdiction in the case.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any misreading or non-reading of the evidence which could justify interference by C this Court in revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. No costs. H.B.T./A-300/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.