' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---This judgment proposes to decide 2 Civil Revisions, one in hand and the other Civil Revision 2500 of 2003, as both these petitions raised similar questions of law- facts and are between the same parties, arising out of one suit by the respondent.
2. Precisely, relevant facts are that respondent Riasat Ali Javedfiled a suit for recovery of Rs,24,500 against the petitioner, as compensation for malicious prosecution. Petitioner contested the suit but the same was decreed by the trial Court on 6-12-2001, awarding the respondent a decree for an amount of Rs,5000 on account of damages suffered by him.
3. Both the parties were not satisfied with the decision rendered by the learned Civil Judge, and they filed their distinct appeals before the learned Additional District Judge, where petitioner remained unsuccessful as his appeal was dismissed whereas appeal of the respondent was accepted and amount of compensation was enhanced to Rs,10,000 vide appellate judgment/decree, dated 6-2-2002. Petitioner, thereafter, filed above noted two civil revisions and respondent in response to notice by this Court appeared and was represented through his counsel.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. Both the Courts below were persuaded by the statements of D.Ws. 1 and 3, which were to the effect that the respondent was disgraced by moving an application for his inquiry into the alleged illegal/unauthorized conduct. D.W.1 has deposed that he effected compromise between the parties, on the basis of findings of the inquiry, during which petitioner was said to have undertaken to payexpenses of the litigation etc. Respondent did not produce in evidence either the complaint/application moved by the petitioner or findings of the Inquiry Officer and at the same time, file is absolutely thirsty of the proof regarding any damage of physical/mental torture sustained by the respondent. Respondent also failed to prove his entitlement to the relief claimed and could not show that he in his capacity as a police constable, was adversely exposed in the eyes of his relations or public-at-large. Details of damage allegedly suffered by the respondent also were not borne out of the record and in absence of any clear evidence on these aspects of the matter; his suit for damages could not have been decreed. Scan of record and the impugned judgments revealed that those were not only imaginary but also lack reasoning's, required for grant of a decree as compensation for the mental/physical torture or disrepute suffered at the hands of the petitioner, thus those are not sustainable at law and deserved to be reversed.
5. For the reasons noted above, both these revision petitions are bound to succeed and are accordingly accepted with the result that by setting aside the impugned judgments/decrees, dated 6-12-2001 and 6-2-2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge, and the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozewala, suit filed by the respondent is dismissed with no order as to costs.