' SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.--- Arshad Mehmood Cheema, Civil Judge, Gujranwala decreed the suit for damages filed by the respondent to the tune of Rs,12,000 vide judgment and decree, dated 10- 7-1997. Syed Akhlaq Ahmad, Additional District Judge, Gujranwala while dismissing the appeal upheld the decision vide judgment, dated 17-9-1998. This revision petition has been filed against the aforementioned concurrent findings of the Courts below.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this petition are that the petitioner lodged F.I.R. No,381 of 1990, dated 16-10-1990 (Exh.P.1), whereby a criminal case under section 379, P.P.C. Was registered against the respondent and others. The F.I.R. Stood cancelled after usual investigation by the police vide cancellation report, dated 29-10-1990 (Exh.P-3) and cancellation order, dated 11-4-1991 (Exh. P-2).
3. Respondent was arrested and remained in lock-up for investigation from 17-10-1990 to 29-10- 1990. He was set at liberty on the basis of cancellation report (Exh. P-3).
4. The respondent instituted the suit against the petitioner for recovery of Rs,24,500 (rupees twenty four thousand and five hundred only) as damages for mental torture, loss of reputation and business. The defendant/petitioner contested the suit by way of filing a written statement and raised therein certain preliminary objections. The suit was dismissed but was remanded to the trial Court by the learned District Judge, Gujranwala vide judgment, dated 14-7-1996. An issue was added by the learned District Judge, Gujranwala which reads as under:- "Whether the defendant Maliciously prosecuted the plaintiff? OPP"
5. The plaintiff produced three witnesses and adduced in evidence documents Exh.P-1 to Exh.P-6.
The defendant, on the other hand, produced three witnesses and also produced copy of order, dated 7-6-1992 passed by Magistrate as Exh. D-1 .
6. The learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff to the extent of Rs,12,000 (rupees twelve thousand only) along with costs. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order and the learned appellate Court vide decision dated 17-9-1998 upheld the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Hence, this revision petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when the case was remanded by the appellate Court in the first round of litigation, a fresh issue was framed and its onus was on the respondent, who failed to lead any evidence to prove the said issue. He further contended that the parties entered into a settlement and as a result of compromise, therefore, the petitioner decided not to pursue the case which resulted into termination of criminal action in favour of the respondent.
Learned counsel has referred to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled "Barkat Ali v.
Muhammad Nawaz" PLD 2004 SC 489 to support his contention as to the competence of the revision petition against the concurrent findings of the Courts. He further added that the learned Courts below have misread the evidence and the respondent has deliberately claimed an amount of Rs,24,500 (twenty four thousand and five hundred only) to avoid the payment of court-fee.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner has failed to show any misreading or non-reading of evidence in the impugned judgments. He further argued that the revision under reference is against the concurrent findings of two Courts below and as such is not competent. Learned counsel for the respondent emphasized that the prosecution was not terminated as a result of compromise as alleged by the petitioner rather the petitioner had been pursuing the investigation at the relevant time vigorously which is proved by statement of D.W.2. He added that the said witness of the defendant/petitioner who was the Investigating Officer denied that the F.I.R. Was cancelled as a result of compromise between the parties and stated that the same was cancelled as it was a false case.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record with their assistance.
10. In order to succeed in a suit for recovery of damages on the basis of malicious prosecution the petitioner is required to prove.
"(i) That the plaintiff was prosecuted by the defendant;
(ii) That the prosecution ended plaintiffs' favour;
(iii) That the defendant acted without reasonable and probable cause;
(iv) That the proceedings had interfered with plaintiffs liberty and had also affected his reputation; and finally
(v) That the plaintiff had suffered damage."
' The Supreme Court of Pakistan has already examined and decided the aforementioned test in case titled "Muhammad Akram v. Mst. Farman Bibi" PLD 1990 SC 28. Perusal of the evidence reveals that there was a dispute between the petitioner and close relatives of the respondent regarding the purchase of land measuring 67-K 18-M, in village Thatha Panjhata and the petitioner succeeded in getting the injunctive order from the Court of concerned Tahsildar. There is no denial of the fact that a criminal case was registered against the respondent and the documents Exh.P-2 and Exh.P-3 are the clear proof of the fact that the prosecution terminated in favour of the respondent. The existence of dispute between the relatives of the respondent and the petitioner has also been proved by evidence. Respondent/ plaintiff proved his case, in accordance with this test laid down by the Supreme Court in case cited above and the Courts below have rightly decided the same in the light of the decisions of the superior Courts. No specific incident of non- reading or misreading of the evidence by the Courts below has been pointed out, therefore, the impugned decisions are unexceptional and do not call for any interference.
11. Upshot of the above discussion is that the instant petition carries no merits and the same is dismissed with costs.