JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - Plaintiffs four in number, filed Money Suit No. 42 of 1958 against the sole Defendant for recovery of damages for malicious prosecution. Damages were claimed separately by each of the Plaintiffs. Plaintiff No. 1 claimed Rs. 200/-, Plaintiff No. 2 Rs. 100/-, Plaintiff No. 3 Rs. 20/- and Plaintiff No. 4 Rs. 20/. Thus in all Rs. 340/- was claimed as damages. Rs. 10/- was claimed as special damages for the expenses of witnesses for defending themselves in Complaint Case No. 34 of 1957 in the Court of Nijgarh Adalti Panchayati, Athgarh. Plaintiffs thus claimed Rs. 350/- and costs. The plaint allegation was that the Defendant filed a criminal case before the Adalti Panchayat without reasonable and probable cause being actuated by malice. The defence was that the averments in the plaint were not true and no case had been made out for malicious prosecution. The trial Court decreed the suit in toto with costs of Rs. 92. 31 paise. Defendant filed an appeal before the District Judge, Cuttack which was ultimately heard by the 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge. He did not go into the merits of the matter and dismissed the appeal as having abated. The trial Court's judgment was delivered on 26-9-1959. The appeal was filed on 10-11-1959. Plaintiff No. 4 (Respondent No. 4) died on 1-5-1962 during the pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate Court. The appeal was heard on 17-8-1963 and dismissed on 16-9-1963. The only question argued in the second appeal is whether the view of the lower appellate Court that the entire appeal abated before him is correct. 2. Before proceeding further it may be clarified that though in the plaint the four Plaintiff, claimed separate amount of damages, as already indicated, in the decree drawn up the amount is stated as a consolidated amount Rs. 340/-. Mr. Dhal accordingly argued that the decree for damages was also joint and indivisible. This, contention cannot be supported. The relief portions of the plaint were quoted in the trial Court's decree and by mistake the bracketed portion as per the schedule was omitted. The decree must be read along with the prayer in the plaint. This portion of the decree must therefore be read in terms of the plaint and is Dot to be construed as joint and indivisible. 3. The decree awarded Rs. 10/-. The decree must be read along with the prayer in the plaint. This portion of the decree must therefore be read in terms of the plaint and is Dot to be construed as joint and indivisible. 3. The decree awarded Rs. 10/-. towards special damages and costs of Rs. 92. 31 paise. These portions of the decree are not disputed to be joint and indivisible. We are thus faced with a case in which the entire decree is not joint and indivisible. Mr. Misra does not dispute the proposition that the decree in respect of Rs. 10/- awarded as special damages and for Costs of Rs. 92. 31 paise cannot be varied by the lower appellate court as the joint and indivisible decree passed in favour of deceased Plaintiff No. 4 has become final, and if disturbed in appeal, it would lead to inconsistent and contradictory decrees arising in course of same litigation. The concession is well founded. 4. The correctness of this contention can be tested by examining the fortune of the litigation if the lower appellate Court decides to allow the appeal by holding that a case for malicious prosecution has not been made out. On such a finding, the suit of the Plaintiffs is bound to be dismissed with complete discretion left in the lower appellate Court to award costs to the Defendant against the Plaintiffs. This discretion of granting costs against the Plaintiffs on the contingency of the successes of their appeal would not be available to the lower appellate Court in view of the position already conceded that the appellate Court cannot, interfere with the trial Court's decree regarding costs and special damages. In case the appellate Court grants costs against the Plaintiffs, there would be two inconsistent and contradictory decrees in the same litigation which is abhorrent to law of abatement. In this view of the matter, even though the decree for damages of Rs. 340/- is divisible and the abatement of the appeal against Plaintiffs DO, 4 would not have normally affected the appeal against the other three Plaintiffs, the appeal must abate as a whole. Mr. Misra's contentions must, therefore, be rejected on the aforesaid elementary analysis. No authority directly on the point could be cited by the learned advocates on either side though the case was adjourned from time to time and enough opportunity was given to them. Mr. Misra's contentions must, therefore, be rejected on the aforesaid elementary analysis. No authority directly on the point could be cited by the learned advocates on either side though the case was adjourned from time to time and enough opportunity was given to them. The nearest case, though not directly applicable to the s, is one reported in Nemi Chand and Others Vs. Harak Chand and Others, . 5. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances parties to bear their own costs in this Court and in the lower appellate Court. The costs of the trial Court would stand. Final Result : Dismissed