1993 PLP 1757 (CLC)

Rafi Ahmed for Applicant. Granted subject to all just exceptions.

2. This revision application has been filed challenging the concurrent findings of the two Courts below. Briefly the facts are that the present applicant had filed a suit for damages being Suit No.1209 of 1986 against the present respondent claiming dam*ages on account of malicious prosecution. The present respondent had filed a criminal case for trespass against the present applicant being private Complaint No.130 of 1981 under sections 427/447/504 and 506, P.P.C. in the Court of Additional City Magistrate, Jauharabad, Karachi. This complaint was dismissed under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. On 17‑9‑1984 mainly on the ground that the complainant had no locus standi to prefer the said complaint. Being aggrieved the present respondent filed criminal revision application under section 439‑A, Cr.P.C. in the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Karachi, which was dismissed on 10‑8‑1986 for the reasons that appeal was provided under section 439 (5), Cr.P.C. In the suit, the present respondent had filed his written statement and contested the matter and the trial Court had framed the issues and recorded the evidence of the parties and their witnesses. However, the Court of Senior Civil Judge came to the conclusion that the present applicant could not prove that the criminal case was filed against the present applicant on malicious grounds and also that he could not prove the damages. An appeal was preferred, which was 'also dismissed and, therefore, this revision application. I have heard Mr. Rafi Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant. The learned counsel has submitted that it has been proved by the applicant that the criminal case was filed against him for malicious reason in order to harass him and the same having been dismissed, he was entitled to claim damages. He has placed reliance on the case reported in PLD 1957 Lahore 283 in support of his contention that even if the damages are not proved, the same should have been calculated by the Court. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and also perused the deposition of the present applicant. In his deposition before the trial Court, the applicant has neither shown as to how the harassment was caused to him and nothing has been said with regard to malicious prosecution. He has also not stated as to how many hearings he had attended before the criminal Court and how much amount he has spent over the prosecution of the said case or if he was deprived of any monetary benefits or earnings on account of the said criminal case. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the two Courts below have correctly arrived at the conclusion that the damages have not been proved by the present applicant. However, this being revision application against the concurrent findings this Court will not go into the findings of fact. As regards the question of law involved in this case, a reference may be made to the case of Muhammad Akram v. Mst. Farman Bi (PLD 1989 Lahore 200) wherein the criteria has been laid down at page

205. On the face of it, the case of the present applicant does not fall within the said criteria. Accordingly, I find no reasons to interfere with the concurrent findings of the two Courts below. The revision application is dismissed summarily. H.B.T./M‑1796/K Revision application dismissed.