P L D 2006 Lahore 503 (PLP)

SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.

The appellant was a Major in the Pakistan Army, his father filed a suit for possession through pre-emption against respondents Nos. 2 and

3. The suit ended in a compromise, the appellant's father paid consideration and the land was transferred in his favour. The respondents harboured a grudge and filed an application with the G.H.Q. Rawalpindi and Commander 10 Corps against the appellant. The application contained various allegations, resultantly an inquiry was held against the appellant in which respondents fully participated, however, the appellant was honourably acquitted and the proceedings were dropped. The appellant filed a suit for damages of Rs.200,000,00 against the respondents, which was decreed to the extent of Rs.1,00,000 by the trial Court vide judgment dated 5-7-2000. The appellant terms this compensation as inadequate and has filed the present appeal for enhancement of damages.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the quantum of damages awarded by the trial Court is not in consonance with the status of the appellant and compensation for the mental torture and agony he suffered while facing the inquiry is inadequate. According to him the frivolous application jeopardized his career and he could not be promoted to the higher level, although he was fit to be promoted as Corps Commander in later life and he fell sick and had to incur huge medical expenses. It is contended that the evidence produced by the appellant was not considered properly, especially the testimony of P.Ws. 1 to

3. In support of his contentions the learned counsel placed reliance on Muhammad Akram v. Mst. Farman Bi PLD 1990 SC 28; Ehsan-ul-Haq Piracha an other v. Tajammal Hussain 1991 CLC Note 216 at page 169 and Munir Ahmad v. Muhammad Sadiq 1986 CLC 1181.

3. The respondents/defendants statedly have not assailed the judgment of the trial Court. No cross-objections have been filed by them. They are not even represented and have been proceeded against ex parte.

4. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant. The initial controversy related to a piece of land measuring 294 Kanals, 13 Marlas, located in Gujranwala, which was purchased by Ghulam Rasool and Bashir Ahmad, through a registered sale-deed on 4-5-1992. The sale was challenged by the appellant's father Ch. Allah Ditta by filing a suit for possession through pre-emption and ultimately ended in a compromise in which a sum of Rs.37 Lac was paid to the respondents. However, they harboured a grudge against the appellant's father and made an application to the G.H.Q. and Commander 10 Corps, thereafter a lengthy inquiry ensued which ultimately was dropped and the appellant was honourably acquitted. We have perused the documentary evidence as well as the depositions of witnesses. The appellant is only aggrieved to the extent of award of inadequate damages as compensation. According to the learned counsel for the appellant Rs.1,00,000 is no compensation as compared to the mental torture and agony suffered by the appellant and his career was jeopardized due to this inquiry. In a suit for damages based on malicious prosecution the standard of proof has been laid down through the case-law on the subject. In Stapeley v. Annetts and another (1969) 3 All ER 1541 it was observed by Lord Denning M.R., that "on the claim for malicious prosecution, the burden is different. The plaintiff has to allege and prove that the defendants acted maliciously and without any reasonable or probable cause". It was reiterated in the same judgment that "in an action for malicious prosecution the burden is on the plaintiff to prove malice and absence of reasonable and probable cause". The position in this country also is not different. From the perusal of record it is evident that no direct evidence was produced by the appellant to support these contentions. The inquiry ended in his favour, there was no stigma or any adverse finding against him, no adverse report was placed on record to substantiate this fact, he continued in service thereafter, therefore, the record does not support his contention that his career was jeopardized by this inquiry. There is no cogent evidence linking the appellant with any illness, no bills or medical prescriptions have been placed on record, thus, there is also no direct evidence to establish the quantum of expenditure and consequential losses suffered by the appellant. The testimony of the witnesses (P.Ws. 1 to 3) does not establish the quantum of damages to Rs.2 Crores also. Damages are compensation to vindicate the stand of the aggrieved person and to hold that there was no substance in the allegations levelled against him. He has succeeded to that extent before the trial Court and has been awarded damages. The other limb as to the quantum of the damages has to be proved clearly. Cogent and convincing material has to be placed on record to establish the actual losses, remote and hypothetical damages cannot be measured in monetary terms and consequently granted. In the present case there is no direct evidence to establish the actual quantum of money spent on medical bills or even litigation, thus, the amount of Rs.2 Crores could not be proved. The precedents cited by the learned counsel do not wholly support the appellant, being distinguishable on facts of the cases. There is thus no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment. Resultantly this appeal has no merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs. M.B.A./I-22/L Appeal dismissed.