2026 PLP 659 (MLD)

Chaudhary Khalid Rasheed, J.

The captioned appeal have been preferred against judgment and decree recorded by learned Additional District Judge Mirpur dated 11.12.2018, whereby suit filed by Muhammad Rasheed for the recovery of Rs.10,00,000/- has been decreed to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- Precise facts forming background of the instant appeals are, Muhammad Rasheed appellant/respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of Rs.10,00,000/- against Sajid Mehmood in the Court of Additional District Judge Mirpur, wherein it was stated that the plaintiff runs his private school with the name of City of Knowledge Mangla Hamlet, registered by Director Public Instructions Elementary and Secondary Education Male Schools for the year 2014-15 on 22.08.2014. Registration was renewed for the year 2014-15 on 24.02.2015. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff is a respectable citizen. It was contended that on 24.01.2015 defendant filed an application before Deputy Commissioner Mirpur for closing illegal and unregistered School of the plaintiff which was made over to EAC for proceedings. EAC sought report from SHO Police Station Mangla, however after investigation the application was found false. It was alleged that defendant filed false application just to humiliate the plaintiff and to cause financial loss to the plaintiff as well as to damage the respect and reputation of the plaintiff due to which the plaintiff suffered financial loss as well as mental torture, thus the suit may be decreed. Defendant contested the suit by filing written statement wherein, claim of plaintiff was refuted. The learned trial Court framed issues in the light of pleadings of the parties, provided them opportunity to lead evidence and at the conclusion of the proceedings, decreed the suit to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- vide its impugned judgment and decree dated 11.12,2018, hence the captioned appeals. The learned counsel for the defendant/appellant vehemently argued that this is a case of misreading and non-reading of evidence as documentary evidence produced by defendant/appellant tendered as Exh.DD, Exh.DD/1 and Exh.DD/2 has not been discussed and pondered. He further argued that the plaintiff failed to prove that the application was filed with mala fide intention to humiliate him in the society rather he admitted in his Court statement during cross-examination that his school was not closed on the application of defendant/appellant, thus the suit was liable to be dismissed but the Court below failed to appreciate the evidence in its true perspective and wrongly decreed the suit to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/-, so appeal may be accepted and the suit may be dismissed. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant contended that the plaintiff proved by producing cogent and convincing documentary as well as oral evidence that the application was filed by defendant with mala fide intention in order to humiliate the plaintiff due to which he suffered financial loss as well as mental agony, thus the plaintiff was entitled to the decree of the claimed amount. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the record of the case with utmost care and caution. Ordinarily the damages are divided into two kinds; special damages and general damages, special damages are defined as actual loss suffered by a party and a decree for special damages can be granted when the plaintiff succeeds to prove each item of loss with reference to the evidence brought on record. Special damages includes expenses and loss of earning incurred down the date of trial and capable of exact calculation. The general damages includes damage to the reputation and suffering mental torture, nervous shock which cannot be calculated, hence the same are granted on the basis of thumb impression(sic). My this view finds support from PLD 2021 SC 564 wherein at page 569 it has been observed as under: "

7. Special damages are defined as the actual but not necessarily the result of the injury complained of. While awarding special damages, it is to be kept in mind that the person claiming special damages has to prove each item of loss with reference to the evidence brought on record. This may also include out-of-pocket expenses and loss of earnings incurred down to the date of trial, and is generally capable of substantially exact calculation.

8. As to the submission that it was an ex-parte decree and there was not rebuttal denying the claim of the respondent and therefore it had to be decreed as prayed. The contention is totally misconceived as it has been repeatedly held by this Court that even in case where the defendants are declared ex parte, though the Courts are empowered to pass ex parte decree, but such discretionary power must be exercised judicially. In cases where the defendants are declared ex parte, Courts are not supposed to only pass ex parte decree in favour of the plaintiff by assessing his claim in toto, but are saddled with the duty to examine the worth/credence of each piece/items of plaintiff's claim before accepting or rejecting it. However, in the instant case the Courts have miserably failed to examine that the respondent has totally failed to adduce any evidence, either oral or documentary, in support of his claim that he has actually sustained bodily injury or any set back to his career, therefore, the hefty special damages granted without application of judicial mind could not be sustained.

9. General damages normally pertain to mental torture and agony sustained through derogatory/defamatory statements. Since there is no yardstick to gauge such damages in monetary terms, therefore, while assessing damages on account of such inconvenience, the Courts apply a rule of thumb by exercising its inherent jurisdiction for granting general damages on a case to case basis." In the instant case, the plaintiff took the stance that defendant filed an application before Deputy Commissioner Mirpur for closing illegal and unregistered City of Knowledge Public School situated at Mangla Hamlet Tehsil and District Mirpur. The application was entrusted to EAC Mirpur for proceedings. EAC sought report from SHO Police Station Mangla. The report of SHO Police Station Mangla is available with the file of trial Court as annexure PC which is totally silent regarding registration of School and it is simply stated that the school is situated on plot D/12 which is in the possession of Muhammad Rasheed. On this report the application of defendant was declared false. The matter was also investigated by Ehtesab Bureau and as per order issued by Elementary and Secondary Education Department, the initial registration of the concerned school was not found in the record and the report made by Deputy District Education Officer (Male) Mirpur was declared false, thus it was established that the plaintiff was running school without registration and the application filed on behalf of defendant before the Deputy Commissioner was also to the same effect that the plaintiff is running an unregistered school, so it cannot be said that the defendant filed an application with mala fide intention to humiliate the plaintiff in the society and damage his reputation rather the defendant through said application brought the actual situation into the notice of the Deputy Commissioner for legal proceedings. Merely filing of an application to the competent authority for taking legal action cannot be termed as malicious prosecution. It was the responsibility of the plaintiff to prove that the application was false and was filed with mala fide intention. The plaintiff to prove his claim produced order dated 22.08.2014 tendered in evidence as Exh.PBB but the said document cannot be relied upon because the same is not certified and in the order dated 25.06.2015 available at page 5 of the written statement by defendants the same has been declared as not found in the record. The plaintiff further produced attestation Exh.PC dated 24.02.2015 which is also not certified rather is an attested copy by a notary public. A perusal of the record also reveals that the school of the plaintiff was not closed on the application of defendant/appellant rather after an inquiry the application was disallowed by declaring false without inquiring into the matter that whether the school of plaintiff was registered or not, thus the question of special damages as claimed by the plaintiff does not arise. Even otherwise, the plaintiff failed to mention in the plaint the calculable exact special damages suffered by him due to action of defendants. For award of decree for general damages, it was the responsibility of the plaintiff to prove by producing cogent evidence that application filed by defendant was false and his school was properly registered and the application was filed just to humiliate him in the society, however the plaintiff failed to place on record any reliable document in support of his contention that the school was registered under law but during inquiry, it was found that the basic registration of the school is not available in the record of the concerned department, thus it cannot be held in any stretch of imagination that the filing of application by the defendant/appellant was an outcome of malice is proved rather it can safely be held that the defendant through the application brought an illegal action of plaintiff into the notice of concerned authority for which he cannot be penalized. The sum and substance of the above discussion is, the appeal filed by defendant/appellant Sajid Mehmood is hereby accepted, the suit filed by plaintiff/appellant Muhammad Rasheed is hereby dismissed for want of proof, resultantly counter appeal filed by plaintiff/appellant Muhammad Rasheed is hereby dropped. MQ/10/AJKHC Appeal allowed.