Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 9139 AP
Judgement Date : 3 October, 2024
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE: S.A.No.541 of 2024
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
No. DATE ORDER NOTE
4. 03.10.2024 NJS, J
Heard learned counsel for the appellants.
Also heard learned counsel for the
respondent, who appeared through on line.
In the light of the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants in M.Abubaker and Ors., v. Abdul Kareem (2004 (3) ALT 104) and Wipro Products Limited v. Akbar S.Noori (2014 (1) ALD 16) and as it is a case of reversing judgment, it is deemed appropriate to admit the Second Appeal, more particularly in view of the following substantial questions of Law.
1) Whether the first appellate Court can rely on the findings recorded by or evidence adduced before the criminal court for arriving at a conclusion as to the incidence malice in a civil suit for malicious prosecution?
2) Whether the lower appellate Court is right in allowing the appeal against the appellants 2 to 4 as they are witnesses only in C.C.No.308 of 2010 and not the persons who set the law into motion?
3) Whether the Judgment and Decree of the lower appellate Court satisfies the test of five elements required to prove the malicious prosecution?
4) Whether the first appellate Court is right in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent for malicious prosecution in the absence of pleadings as to what constituted the basis for initiation of false and malicious prosecution?
Admit.
Pending further consideration, there shall be interim stay as prayed for, subject to the condition of petitioners /appellants depositing 1/4th of the decretal amount, within a period of six (6) weeks. On such deposit, the respondent is permitted to withdraw the same.
______ NJS, J BLV
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!