JUDGMENT I. The defendant has fell aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dt. 28.11.90 passed in C.S. No. 37-B/90. By impugned judgment the learned trial judge has passed a decree for Rs. 1 lac. The background under which the impugned decree came to he passed need mention to appreciate the grievance urged. 2. Respondent (plaintiff) is a sweeper working in one hospital at Indore on a monthly salary of Rs. 325. He belongs to schedule casts. 3. Respondent (plaintiff) filed a suit against the appellant (defendant) in forma pauperise claiming compensation/damages of Rs. 1 lac. It was alleged in the plaint that appellant (defendant) alongwith one Chandu Rokde lodged on 20.8.87 one false complaint against the respondent (plaintiff) purporting it to he under section 341, 394, 506-B, 323. 426 IPC. It was alleged that this complaint was filed by Chandu hut it was done with the help of appellant (defendant). It was further alleged that respondent (plaintiff) fearing his arrest had to apply for anticipatory hail and obtained the same under section 438 of CrPC. 4. It is then alleged that as a result of riling of aforesaid FIR a case was registered against the respondent (plaintiff) in the Court or Magistrate hut ultimately on 24.4.90 the respondent (plaintiff) was acquitted or charges. 5. It is alleged that due to riling of false FIR and raise case the respondent (plaintiff) suffered mental pain and agony. His image in the society, got damaged considerably due to which his status was affected. 6. On the aforesaid pleading the respondent (plaintiff) founded his cause of action to file suit for claiming damages for the loss of his reputation in society. According to respondent (plaintiff) he has become entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 1 lac. for the loss of his reputation and damage that he suffered due to filing or false complaint by Chandu and the appellant (defendant). 7. The appellant (defendant) filed a written statement and perusal of written statement indicates that it was almost a written statement admitting the claim. In other words there was no specific denial of allegations made in the plaint. 8. No issues were framed. The plaintiff (respondent) did not enter into a witness box. The Trial Court relying on order 12 rule 6(1) of CPC decreed the suit by observing following. In other words there was no specific denial of allegations made in the plaint. 8. No issues were framed. The plaintiff (respondent) did not enter into a witness box. The Trial Court relying on order 12 rule 6(1) of CPC decreed the suit by observing following. izfroknh us viuk oknhÙkj flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ds vkns"k 12 fu;e 6¼1½ ds vUrxZr LohdkjksfDr dk cknksÙkj izLrqr fd;k rFkk oknh ds iwjs okn dks eatwj fd;k rFkk mlus ;gh izxV fd;k fd mlds fo#) t;i= ns fn;k tkosA ,slh fLFkfr;ksa es oknh dk okn i= vfo"okl djus dk dksbZ dkj.k ugha gS vkSj oknh us viuk oknk lQy fl) fd;k gSA QyLo:i oknh dk okn fMØh fd;k tkrk gS vkSj oknh ds gd esa izfroknh ds fo#) uhps fy[ks vuqlkj t;i= ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA 9. It is this decree the defendant challenges it by filing this appeal. The defendant expressed his inabilities to pay adveloram court fees on memo of appeal and hence filed this appeal under order 44 of CPC. This Court made inquiries with a view to IInd out whether appellant can he allowed to prosecute this appeal as indigent person and whether he has a capacity to pay adveloram court fees. This Court by its order dt. 15.10.92 exempted the appellant from payment or court fees. 10. Heard Shri Solanki. LC for the appellant (defendant) and Shri Ganesh Verma. LC for respondent (plaintiff) who has tiled his submissions in writing on 27.4.2000. 11. Having heard the counsel and perused the record of the case as also the written submission. I am of the view that his appeal must be allowed and the impugned decree must he set-aside. 12. In my opinion, the trial Court should not have relied on order 12 Rule 6(1) ibid for passing a decree This was not a case where the decree could he passed straight way by referring and relying on order 12 Rule 6(1) ibid. This was a fit case where despite the written statement being that of mostly admission. the trial Court should have exercised its powers conferred under order 8 Rule 5(1) proviso and called upon the plaintiff to prove the case independent to that of written statement. This was a fit case where despite the written statement being that of mostly admission. the trial Court should have exercised its powers conferred under order 8 Rule 5(1) proviso and called upon the plaintiff to prove the case independent to that of written statement. Perusal of plaint allegations even prima facie do not make out a case of claiming damages muchless to the extent of 1 lakh nor do they even make out a case of malacious prosecution as accepted in torts. In order to claim damages in a case sought to set up by the respondent (plaintiff). it is obligatory upon the plaintiff to prove by cogent evidence both oral as also documentary irrespective or fact whether defendant has joined issue or not. 13. In the present case virtually there was no trial. Issues were not framed. plaintiff did not care to enter in witness box. He did not even file single document along with the plaint or even during pending suit. He even did not file the copy of so-called judgment which resulted in his acquittal and on which the entire suit was founded. The trial Court just by referring to order 12, rule 6 in one paragraph referred supra proceeded to decree the suit. 14. In my opinion, this is a case where the party and in particular the respondent (plaintiff) has simply tried to abuse the judicial process for his selfish purpose. It is amply clear the way the entire suit was prosecuted which led to passing of impugned decree. The misconceiveness in the plaint is writ large in its mere reading. The basic allegations in the plaint are against one Chandu. He is not sued nor made party. The plaintiff claims to be a sweeper drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 3,50/- I fail to appreciate the grievance of respondent (plaintiff) in the entire allegations which does not make out any case entitling him to claim damages for the loss of his reputation which can be valued at Rs. 1 lakh. 15. The submission of LC for the respondent (plaintiff) that the appellant be called upon to pay court fees on memo of appeal is not acceptable in view of the fact that this issue is already decided against the respondent (plaintiff) and in favour of appellant (defendant) by this Court on 15.10.92 as referred supra. 1 lakh. 15. The submission of LC for the respondent (plaintiff) that the appellant be called upon to pay court fees on memo of appeal is not acceptable in view of the fact that this issue is already decided against the respondent (plaintiff) and in favour of appellant (defendant) by this Court on 15.10.92 as referred supra. Coming to other issues urged by the respondent in his written submission they are dealt with by me supra and decided against the respondent (plaintiff). No other issues are urged except those referred. 16. In view of aforesaid discussion, I am constrained to set aside the impugned judgment and the decree' and all owe the appeal. As a necessary consequence, the suit filed by the respondent stands dismissed. Since both respondent as also the appellant contested this litigation informa pauperise. No cost to either.