Law:

Section:

Summary The appellant, Ejaz Farooq, filed a civil suit seeking damages for malicious prosecution, mental torture, and loss of goodwill after being acquitted in a criminal case. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the acquittal was based on the benefit of the doubt and there was no finding that the FIR was false. The appellant then filed an appeal, but it was filed after the limitation period and sought condonation of delay on medical grounds. The appellate court rejected the delay application and dismissed the appeal. In the second appeal, the High Court clarified that a malicious prosecution claim does not require an express judicial finding that the FIR was false or malicious. However, the Court held that the appeal remained barred by limitation because the appellant failed to explain each day of delay. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. Sections Used Facts of the Case Trial Court Decision Appeal Before District Court Arguments of the Appellant Court's Analysis Findings on Malicious Prosecution Findings on Limitation Final Order Relevant Laws / Principles Applied Tort of Malicious Prosecution Limitation Act (Condonation of Delay) Principle of Sufficient Cause for delay Vested right arising from expiry of limitation period Cases Cited 2005 MLD 60 PLD 1960 (W.P.) Karachi 562 PLD 2016 S.C. 478 PLD 2006 S.C. 432 PLD 1963 (W.P.) Karachi 155 Two-Word Description Malicious Prosecution Limitation Bar Order Sheet   Appellant / plaintiff-Ejaz Farooq had filed Civil Suit No.68 of 2017 before the Senior Civil Judge, Karachi, South, for damages on account of malicious prosecution, mental torture, damages and good will. The learned trial Court after hearing the matter dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 25.09.2019 holding as follows: “- - - -, since the plaintiff was acquitted under the shadow of doubt and trial Court did not declare that the said FIR was lodged on false allegations, therefore this contention of plaintiff that he paid huge amount for his defence in false case is also un-called for   ”   Thereafter the appellant / plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal No.412 of 2019…