Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.115---Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of---Courts below had concurrently concluded that petitioner had failed to prove that criminal case against him was filed by respondent for malicious reasons in order to harass him---Concurrent finding of fact of Courts below, could not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. PLD 1957 Lah. 283 and Muhammad Akram v. Mst. Farman Bi PLD 1989 Lah. 200 ref. Rafi Ahmed for Applicant. ORDER 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…