ORDER Malik, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order of Civil Judge Class II, Narsimhpur, dated the 18th November 1976, in Civil Suit No. 22 B of 1976. 2 The facts in brief are these: The defendant initiated proceedings before the Naib Tahsildar, Narsimhapur under section 250 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code complaining that the plaintiff had, with the help of one Bhagwat, damaged the crops by sloughing the land. On the first date fixed for hearing, the defendant did not appear and the proceedings were dismissed The plaintiff then filed the present suit for damages alleging that the proceedings initiated were malicious and that the defendant had no reasonable and probable cause for filing them. The damages claimed were, (i) Rs. 100 for mental anxiety caused by the proceedings, (ii) Rs. 25 paid to the counsel engaged to defend and (iii) Rs. 10 for loss of income for a day. 3. The question arose whether bringing of an ordinary civil action gave cause of action for damages even though the civil action were malicious, false and vexatious. The trial Court relying on the authority of this Court reported in Pannalal v. Chhedilnl 1970 JLJ 252=1970 MPLJ 80, held that" abuse of the right to put law into motion was of necessity injurious involving damage to property and, therefore, actionable. 4. The learned counsel for the defendant applicant contends that the observations made by the Court in 1970 JLJ 252 should not be read out of context. In that case, the person entitled to the property was kept out of possession and his rights of enjoyment were defeated by vexatious and dilatory proceedings. In that event, the Court held that the measure of damages was the profits taken by the defendant. That was a claim in the nature of mesne profits which the Court accepted. The learned counsel submitted that so far as facts in the present case are concerned, the dictum of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Mohammad Amin v. Jogendra Kumar AIR 1947 PC 10, would apply which is to the following effect :- "The reason why an action does not lie for falsely and maliciously prosecuting an ordinary civil action is that such a case does not necessarily and naturally involve damage to the party sued. A civil action which is false will be dismissed at the hearing. A civil action which is false will be dismissed at the hearing. The defendant's reputation will be cleared of any imputations made against him, and he will be indemnified against his expenses by the award of costs against his opponent. The law does not award damages for mental anxiety, or for extra costs incurred beyond those imposed on the unsuccessful party. But a criminal charge involving mental to reputation or the probable loss of life or liberty to the party charged does necessarily and naturally involve damage and in such a case damage to reputation will be presumed." 5. To the same effect are the observations in Quarts Hill Gold Mining Co. v. Eyre (1) 11 QBD 674, (cited from cases on the Law of Torts by Wright 2nd Edition at page 848) :- "The bringing of an ordinary action does not as a natural or necessary consequence involve any injury to a man's property, for this reason, that the only costs which the law recognizes, and for which it will compensate him, are the costs properly incurred in the action itself. For those the successful defendant will have been already compensated. so far as the law chooses to compensate him. If the judge refuses to give him costs, it is because he does not deserve them. If he does not deserve them, he ought not to get them in a subsequent action. Therefore, the broad canon is true that in the present day and according to our present law, the bringing of an ordinary action, however maliciously, and however great the want of reasonable and probable cause, will not support a subsequent action for malicious prosecution" . 6. The proceedings before a Revenue Court are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure in so far as awarding of costs are concerned. (See section 43 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code). The Naib Tahsildar was competent to award costs, even compensatory costs, if the plaintiff could convince him that the proceedings were false and vexatious and he had been put to unnecessary expense and inconvenience. If he did not press for compensation then he cannot press for it now. 7. In view of the law laid down by the Privy Council in Mohd Amin', case (supra) the present suit must be dismissed. I accept the revision and dismiss the suit. 8. There shall be no order as to costs.