Paramjit Singh Nambardar vs Jagtar Singh
2023 Latest Caselaw 9396 P&H

                                                           Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084264




RSA-3552 of 2019 (O&M)                                   2023:PHHC:084264
                                       -1-

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                                    RSA-3552 of 2019 (O&M)
                                                   Date of Order: 05.07.2023

Paramjit Singh Nambardar
                                                                       .Appellant
                                     Versus

Jagtar Singh                                                      ..Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present: Mr. Anil Kumar Garg, Advocate for the appellant.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J

1. The Regular Second Appeal in the States of Punjab, Haryana

and Union Territory, Chandigarh, is governed by Section 41 of the Punjab

Courts Act, 1918 and not by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908, as held by a five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Pankajakshi

(Dead) through LRs vs. Chandrika and others, (2016) 6 SCC 157.

2. This regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff to

assail the correctness of the concurrent judgments passed by the courts

below while dismissing his suit for recovery of damages of Rs.7,00,000/- for

malicious prosecution. It is claimed by the plaintiff that a false criminal

complaint No.32, dated 24.05.2006 was filed by the defendant against the

appellant which was withdrawn on 24.04.2015 and hence he was acquitted.

He further submits that even in a civil suit the defendant lost vide judgment

dated 07.08.2012.

3. Both the courts on appreciation of evidence have found that the

plaintiff has failed to prove at the first instance that the complaint was the

result of a malicious prosecution. The courts have also held that the

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084264

RSA-3552 of 2019 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:084264

plaintiff has also failed to prove that he suffered any damages.

4. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the

appellant at length and with his able assistance perused the judgments

passed by the courts below as well as the paper book.

5. The learned counsel representing the appellant contends that the

conclusion drawn by the First Appellate Court to the effect that the appellant

was present when the complaint was withdrawn and hence the same was his

tacit consent is erroneous because once the complainant withdraws the

complaint, the accused (respondent) cannot object to its withdrawal. He

submits that the observations made by the First Appellate Court to this

effect are without any basis. He further submits that the revision filed by all

the four accused was withdrawn on the statement of other accused and not

the appellant.

6. It is evident that initially a lease deed was executed by the

defendant-Jagtar Singh. The appellant herein was a witness to the aforesaid

lease deed. Subsequently, Sh. Jagtar Singh claimed that Sh. Charanjit Singh

in connivance with Mr. Paramjit Singh (appellant herein) has hatched a

conspiracy which resulted in procuring the lease deed. It was in that context

the previous litigation started. Subsequently, Sh. Charanjit Singh and Sh.

Jagtar Singh entered into a settlement which resulted into the decision of the

civil suit as well as a criminal case.. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, both

the courts have drawn an inference that there was settlement between the

parties.

7. Undoubtedly, the appellant herein was not a party to the

aforesaid settlement, however, the settlement between the contesting parties

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084264

RSA-3552 of 2019 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:084264

resulted in the withdrawal of the criminal complaint as well as the settlement

of the civil suit.

8. Moreover, despite repeated requests, the learned counsel

representing the appellant failed to draw the attention of the court to any

evidence led to prove that the appellant suffered any damages on account of

the previous litigation. It is evident that only the plaintiff appeared in

evidence. His statement has not been corroborated by any other evidence.

The scope of interference in the Regular Second Appeal is limited.

9. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this court does not find it

appropriate to interfere.

10. Dismissed.

11. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

disposed of.

July 05, 2023                                          (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt                                                           JUDGE


Whether speaking/reasoned                :YES/NO
Whether reportable                       :YES/NO




                                                            Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084264

                                        3 of 3