Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 262 (PNJ)

Prem Pall v. Joginder Singh

2011-01-21

SABINA

body2011
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.: - Plaintiffs had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2000/- as damages for malicious prosecution and defamation. 2. The case of the plaintiffs in brief was that plaintiffs who were related to each other were leading a respectable life. Defendants had enmity against Anoop and Jagga. Plaintiffs had good dealings with said Jagga and Anoop. Due to this reason, defendants became inimical towards plaintiffs. Defendants concocted a story that the plaintiffs had caused injury to defendant No.1. A criminal complaint was filed in the Court of Magistrate. In the police case, challan was not presented in the Court but in the private complaint, plaintiffs and Anoop and Jagga were summoned to face the trial under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Ultimately, plaintiffs, Anoop and Jagga were discharged by the Magistrate vide order dated 22.7.1984. Defendants had maliciously prosecuted plaintiffs. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs. 3. Defendants were proceeded ex-parte as they had failed to appear despite service. 4. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 23.9.1986. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant No. 1 filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur vide judgment and decree dated 9.10.1987 on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable. Hence, the present appeal by defendant No.1. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in view of Section 15 read with Sch.II Article 35 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act , 1887 (for short ‘the Act’), the appeal was maintainable as a suit for compensation for malicious prosecution could not be instituted in the Court of Small Causes. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the impugned judgment and decree. 7. The substantial question of law that arises in this case is as to whether the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court are against the law. 8. Section 96(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred as ‘CPC’) reads as under:- “No appeal shall lie, except on a question of law, from a decree in any suit of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, wen the amount or value of the subjectmatter of the original suit does not exceed [ten thousand rupees]” 9. 8. Section 96(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred as ‘CPC’) reads as under:- “No appeal shall lie, except on a question of law, from a decree in any suit of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, wen the amount or value of the subjectmatter of the original suit does not exceed [ten thousand rupees]” 9. Section 15(1) of the Act reads as under:- “A Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the Second Schedule as suits expected from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes” 10. Schedule II Article 35 of the Act reads as under:- “Article 35.-A suit for compensation- (a) xx xx xx (b) xx xx xx (c) for malicious prosecution (d) for libel (e) for slander xx xx xx” 11. Thus, as per Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no appeal shall lie from a decree in a suit cognizable by Court of Small Causes where the value of the subject matter of the suit does not exceed a particular amount. However, the plaintiffs had filed a suit claiming damages on account of malicious prosecution and defamation. A combined reading of Section 15 and Schedule II Article 35 of the Act shows that a suit for malicious prosecution libel and slander is not cognizable by the Courts of Small Causes. Section 96(4) CPC is not applicable in the present Case. Hence, the learned Additional District Judge erred in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable. The judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge is illegal. The substantial question of law stands answered accordingly. The appeal filed by defendant No.1 was liable to be decided on merits. 12. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court are set aside. The case is remanded back to the First Appellate Court for decision of the appeal on merits. 13. Parties are directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 21.02.2011. -----------0.K.B.0------------