Case Details

Citation(s)
2021 SLG 409 2021 SLD 409 2021 MLD 354
Lahore High Court
R.F.A. No. 29853 of 2019, heard on 11-11-2020, Date of hearing: 11-11-2020.
SHAHID WAHEED, JUSTICE
Muhammad Javaid Iqbal Qureshi for Appellant. Iftikhar Ahmad Mian and Hassan Raza Sheikh for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 8. Raja Muhammad Arif, Addl. Advocate General for
Respondent No.9.

NADEEM AHMAD

VS

SAIFUR-REHMAN AND 8 OTHERS

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 11

(a) Malicious prosecution--- ----Reputation and dignity of man---Safeguard---Object of law is to prevent the evil, that is to say, the commission of crime so as to safeguard reputation and dignity of man---Such is possible only when a duty is laid on citizen to state to the authorities what he knows respecting the commission of crime---Duty is thus a primary concept, indeed the main focus of law, which often takes priority over right---For the sake of public justice, charges and communications which would otherwise be slanderous and actionable, are protected if bona fide for prevention of crime. (b) Malicious prosecution--- ----False implication---Impact---Innocent stigmatized by false implication has to carry such irreparable stigma throughout his life span and its shadow on his next generation also leave dark impressions---People make false accusation for having feeling of enmity towards someone being jealous, getting rid of someone, taking revenge or attaining cheap fame---Such people after making false accusation become busy with their matters but the person against whom false accusation has been made falls into disgrace and infamy for the rest of his life. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.VII, R.11---Suit for recovery of damages---Malicious prosecution---Rejection of plaint---Cause of action absence of---Framing of issues---Criminal case registered against plaintiff was cancelled by police during investigation---Trial Court after framing of issues rejected plaint summarily without recording of evidence on the plea that plaintiff did not face prosecution---Validity---Principle governing such type of circumstances was that where issues were framed, parties must be allowed to lead evidence and plaint could not be summarily rejected---Trial Court did not take such principle into account and without recording evidence granted application stating its finding on preliminary issues and rejected the plaint under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C.---Such and decree passed by Trial Court was not outcome of fair trial as neither justice was done nor it seemed to have been done---High Court set aside and decree passed by Trial Court and remanded same for decision afresh…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492