Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for damages for malicious prosecution. The courts below have concurrently decreed the suit and the defendant has therefore come up in appeal. 2. The facts are simple. The defendant took a mortgage Ext. I from the plaintiff on 5.3.1115 and gave a lease back to the plaintiff under Ext. II though not on the same day. More than a year afterwards, according to him, the defendant discovered that the plaintiff was not entitled to some of the survey numbers included in the mortgage deed and was soon afterwards threatened with prosecution by the real owner. Exchange of notices between the plaintiff and defendant thereupon followed, and though the plaintiff expressed willingness to correct the survey numbers he was dilatory about it. So the defendant after consulting a lawyer D.W. 2 filed a criminal complaint against the plaintiff for cheating. The plaintiff was after some trial in the criminal case discharged and he subsequently filed this suit for damages for malicious prosecution. 3. The courts below, in very elaborate judgments, have discussed the evidence in the case and the law bearing on the matter and found in favour of the plaintiff on all the four ingredients requisite in cases of this type, viz., that there was a prosecution, that it ended in favour of the plaintiff, that there was no reasonable and probable cause for the defendant to prosecute the plaintiff and that the defendant was motivated by ill-will (i.e.,) he bore malice in launching the proceedings and ultimately granted to the plaintiff damages though less than he had asked. 4. Learned Counsel for the defendant appellant raised only one question before me, that is to say, that the courts below had not paid sufficient attention to the fact that a lawyer's opinion had intervened before the defendant set about his prosecution and he relied on 1946 All. 204. The facts of that case were rather peculiar. The prosecutor a lawyer himself had consulted two other senior lawyers before he commenced the contempt of court proceedings in that case and the court held that there was no want of reasonable and probable cause. 204. The facts of that case were rather peculiar. The prosecutor a lawyer himself had consulted two other senior lawyers before he commenced the contempt of court proceedings in that case and the court held that there was no want of reasonable and probable cause. The judges emphasize that if all relevant and necessary records are placed before the lawyer and he advises particular course, then acting on that course may not bring the party within the mischief of this ingredient. There is then no lack of circumspection. 5. In this case however the defendant as Dw.1 has admitted that he gave only the mortgage document and the receipt and had besides not passed on the information to the lawyer that the defendant himself had prepared the mortgage in question with the help of the scribe, Pw.1. It is clear in these circumstances, the lawyer's advice even if competent, will not do. See 1949 Nag. 273. 6. In the result there are no grounds made out for interference with the decrees of the court below and the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Dismissed.