Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaspal Singh vs Amarjit Singh on 21 January, 2025
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
106
RSA-5939-2019 (O&M)
Reserved on : 17.01.2025
Date of Decision : 21.01.2025
Jaspal Singh ... Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Amarjit Singh ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. P.P.S. Duggal, Advocate for the appellant.
ALKA SARIN, J.
CM-16960-C-2019
1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 83 days in
refiling the appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 83 days in
refiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed off.
CM-16964-C-2019
3. This is an application for condonation of delay of 21 days in
filing the appeal.
4. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 21 days in filing
the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed off.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008007
RSA-5939-2019
5. The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant
challenging the judgments and decrees dated 08.08.2018 and 26.11.2018
passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, respectively,
dismissing his suit for recovery of compensation/damages.
6. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
appellant filed a suit for recovery of compensation/damages of Rs.6,00,000/-
against the defendant-respondent averring that he was a labourer and was
married. The defendant-respondent had filed a divorce petition against his
wife in which the plaintiff-appellant was also impleaded as a defendant. In the
divorce petition the defendant-respondent had levelled allegations that his
wife had illicit relations with the plaintiff-appellant. This allegation came to
the knowledge of the villagers and the plaintiff-appellant suffered a lot of
mental harassment, pain and agony and also felt ashamed and the behaviour
of the villagers changed towards him, and he also suffered economic loss. As
per the plaintiff-appellant the allegations of illicit relations were levelled to
defame him and that the reputation and prestige of the plaintiff-appellant and
his family also suffered. Thus, the suit for recovery of compensation/damages.
The suit was contested by the defendant-respondent who raised preliminary
objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, suppression of material
facts, suit having been filed to grab money were levelled. It was the stand
taken that the divorce petition was allowed on 08.01.2016 on the allegations
made therein. It was denied that defendant-respondent had levelled false
allegations against the plaintiff-appellant or that any loss was caused to the
plaintiff-appellant.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008007
7. On the basis of pleadings of the parties the following issues were
framed :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of
Rs.6,00,000/-as prayed for ? OPP
2. Whether the present suit is not maintainable ? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the true and
material facts from the court ? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file
the present suit ? OPD
5. Relief.
8. The Trial Cout dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated
08.08.2018. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-
appellant which appeal was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide
judgment and decree dated 26.11.2018. Hence, the present regular second
appeal.
9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant would contend that
the Courts below have erred in dismissing his suit. It is urged that the
defendant-respondent had levelled false allegations in his divorce petition and
that the plaintiff-appellant had no connection with the wife of the defendant-
respondent. It is contended that the divorce matter was ultimately settled by
the husband and wife and that the plaintiff-appellant and his family had
suffered because of the false allegations levelled against him. Learned counsel
argued that the Courts have erred in non-suiting his claim.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008007
11. In the present case, on a cumulative reading of the pleadings and
oral and documentary evidence produced on the file, it is not established that
the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to compensation/damages for malicious
prosecution. In order to claim compensation/damages for malicious
prosecution, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff-appellant to prove the
ingredients of malicious prosecution, which are : (1) that the plaintiff was
prosecuted by the defendant; (2) that the prosecution terminated in favour of
the plaintiff; (3) that the prosecution was malicious and (4) that it was without
reasonable and probable cause. The plaintiff-appellant has failed to meet the
requirements of law to be successful in his claim for compensation/damages.
He has been unable to substantiate that the divorce proceedings terminated in
favour of the plaintiff-appellant or that the filing of the divorce petition by the
defendant-respondent was malicious or that it was without reasonable and
probable cause.
12. In view of the concurrent findings of fact returned by both the
Courts, no fault can be found with the judgments and decrees passed by both
the Courts. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law,
arises in the present case. The appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly
dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
21.01.2025 ( ALKA SARIN )
Ankur JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
4 of 4
