SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.---A suit for recovery of damages worth Rs.25,000 instituted by the respondent was dismissed by the trial Court on 28-7-1997, whereagainst the appeal preferred by him was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Kharian on 29-4-1998 and his suit was decreed. The judgment of the appellate Court has been assailed through this revision petition.
2. None has appeared to prosecute this petition, however, in view of the fact that the revision petition had been admitted to hearing, I have examined the material on the record and propose to decide the same in the light thereof.
3. The respondent had brought the suit for being involved in case F.I.R. No.278 dated 15-11-1992, under sections 365/148/149, P.P.C. Read with section 14 of Ordinance VI of 1979, in which he was challaned, but was eventually acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate, Kharian and that revision petition filed thereagainst had been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat on 31-10-1993. For this malicious prosecution, the suit was filed to recover damages of Rs.25,000. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit, however, the learned appellate Court on consideration of the circumstances and the evidence reversed his judgment and decreed the suit. The learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has supported the judgment of the appellate Court and contends that the respondent was falsely implicated and unnecessarily dragged into litigation before the Courts.
Reference has been made by him to Muhammad Yousaf v. Syed Ghayyur Hussain Shah and 5 others 1993 SCM R 1185 and Subedar (Retd.) Fazale Rahim v. Rab Nawaz 1999 SCM R 700.
3-A. The perusal of the record and the evidence available on the file support the view taken by the learned Appellate Court inasmuch as the registration of the case, his prosecution and acquittal thereafter was not in dispute. The respondent had to undergo agony of mental and physical, investigation and trial, he was thus justified to claim damages. No illegality or material irregularity has been committed by the appellate Court in this regard.
4. Insofar as the quantum of damages is concerned, there had to be cogent evidence to prove the same. In Subedar (Retd.) Fazale Rahim v. Rab Nawaz 1999 SCM R 700 decree for Rs.14,000 as damages was maintained by the Honourable Supreme Court. In the instant case grant of damages worth Rs.15,000 would have served the ends of justice, I, therefore, modify the decree accordingly.
' As a result of the above, this revision petition is dismissed with the above modification in the decretal amount. No order as to costs.