| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 2358 2026 SLD 2358 = 2026 MLD 659 |
High Court (AJ&K)
Civil Appeals Nos. 166 and 167 of 2019, decided on 6th December, 2024.
Presented By: Chaudhary Khalid Rasheed, J
Muhammad Nadeem Khan for Appellant (in Civil Appeal No. 166 of 2019). Chaudhary Riaz Alam for
Respondent (in Civil Appeal No. 167 of 2019).
Civil Appeals Nos. 166 and 167 of 2019, decided on 6th December, 2024.
Presented By: Chaudhary Khalid Rasheed, J
Muhammad Nadeem Khan for Appellant (in Civil Appeal No. 166 of 2019). Chaudhary Riaz Alam for
Respondent (in Civil Appeal No. 167 of 2019).
SAJID MEHMOOD---Appellant
VERSUS
MUHAMMAD RASHEED---Respondent
Law:
Section:
(a) Damages General damages and special damages---Distinction--- 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). PLD 2021 Sc 564 ref. (b) Damages Application seeking damages---Mala fide intention , absence of---General damages---Entitlement---Defendant filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner for closing school owned / run by plaintiff alleging it to be illegal and unregistered---Plaintiff took the stance that the said application was filed with mala fide intention to humiliate him in the society and damage his reputation---Validity---In the present case, as per probe by Ehtesab Bureau as well as Education Department, the initial registration of the school was not found in the record and the report made by Education Officer 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 was running an unregistered school, so it could not 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 before the competent authority for taking legal action could not 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--- For award of…