MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.--- The facts giving rise to the filing of the present revision petition are to the effect that Muhammad Saeed plaintiff-petitioner herein filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.
20,000/- having been prosecuted maliciously against the defendant-respondent asserting in the plaint that the said respondent had snatched the landed property in Khata Nos. 17 and 18 situated in Chak No. 127/6-R, Tehsil Haroonabad from his father through fraud who was mentally infirm person. It has also been alleged that in order to harass and pressurize the plaintiff the defendant got registered a case F.I.R. No. 204/99 under Section 379, PPC on 22.7.1999, at Police Station, Faqirwali with regard to the theft of mango trees standing in Killa No. 17 of Square No. 57 which was under cultivation of the father of the plaintiff-petitioner and on account of this criminal case he has to move for grant of bail and had been facing the trial of the case for three years.
2. The suit was contested by the defendant- respondent and filed the written statement denying the averments of the plaint. From the factual controversy appearing on the pleadings of the parties and after appraising evidence, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 7.1.2004.
C. L. R.
3. The said judgment and decree has been challenged through an appeal before the learned Addl.
District Judge, Haroonabad, District Bahawalnagar who vide, his judgment and decree dated 18.1.2005 dismissed the same maintaining the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
From the perusal of the evidence and record of the case it reveals that the plaintiff had been acquitted by the Court on account of the non-production of the evidence by the prosecution. The defendant-respondent had not appeared as witness in the Court to State against the plaintiff.
5. In a suit for recovery of damages and compensation on the basis of malacious prosecution the plaintiff is under legal obligation to establish the following ingredients:-
(a) He was prosecuted by the defendant in criminal charge.
(b) The prosecution has ended in his favour.
(c) The prosecution was malacious.
(d) The prosecution was without reasonable and probable cause.
(e) The proceedings had interfered with the plaintiffs liberty and had affected/ruined the reputation and he has to suffer the mental and financial agony.
Reference in this context is placed to the cases of Muhammad Mantazuddin Vs. Shamsur Rahman (PLD 1964 Dacca 618), Shakil Ahmed Vs. Ashfaq Ahmed (1993 CLC (Kar.) 1669), Abdul Rauf Vs. Abdul Razzak and another (PLD 1994 S.C. 476), Subedar (Retd.) Fazale Rahim Vs. of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and 2 others (PLD 2000 Kar. 214).
6. Though the plaintiff was acquitted by the Court but he has not produced any evidence to establish that his prosecution was malicious without reasonable and probable cause and he has sustained the mental and financial loss, how much money has been spent by him on his medical treatment for the mental injury caused to him. There is no iota of evidence on the file to prove the facts.
7. There is a concurrent finding of facts against the petitioner which cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction even if the High Court can take a different view after re-appraising the evidence of the parties. Reference in this context can be placed to the cases of Guldar Khan Vs. Isa Khan (1993 SCMR 2099), Nazir Ahmad Vs. Boota (1989 SCMR 450), Riaz Vs. Muhammad Saleem (1989 SCMR 1491) and Haji Muhammad Din Vs. Malik Muhammad Abdullah (1994 PSC 254).
7. For the foregoing reasons, this revision petition being devoid of force is dismissed in limine.
Civil Revision .