' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---On 5-7-1992 the respondent filed a suit against the petitioner for recovery of Rs,25,000. In the plaint it was stated that the respondent is a noble citizen and enjoys good reputation in the society. On 17-6-1990, the petitioner filed an application against him stating that the respondent had stated before a learned Civil Judge Pakpattan Sharif on 3-12-1983 that he, has nothing to do with the land comprising Khasras Nos.3726/2 and he is not raising any construction thereon. Later he started construction and has committed contempt of Court. The application was contested by him. A local commissioner was appointed who filed a report that the respondent is not raising any construction on the said Khasra number. The learned trial Court dismissed the application on 4-1-1992. He worked out the damages in para.7 of the plaint, as according to him he has suffered loss of reputation and mental agony, expenses on litigation and business loss. The petitioner in his written statement admitted the filing of said application but according to him he had not made any false allegations. According to him the local commissioner visited the site years after the filing of the application. He, however, asserted that according to the report as well the respondent was found to be in possession of his land in Khasra No,3726. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Learned trial Court decreed the suit in sum of Rs,17,000 vide judgment and decree dated 23-1-1996. A learned Additional District Judge, Pakpattan dismissed the first appeal of the petitioner on 5-1-2002.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is neither allegation nor evidence on record that the petitioner maliciously prosecuted the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgments and decrees.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records. Now the respondent Ameer Din did not appear in the witness box. One Sher Muhammad appeared as P.W.1 as an attorney. .According to him the dispute pertains to Khasra Nos.3722 and 3721 which has been allotted to respondent who has fixed an oil press. According to him a false application was filed which was dismissed. In his cross- examination he expressed ignorance that the petitioner had filed a suit against the respondent and obtained a stay order regarding Khasra Nos.3726/2, in the year 1982. He expresses ignorance as to what structure was raised on the said Khasra number after year 1982. He expressed ignorance that on 3-12-1983 Ameer Din respondent had made a statement regarding Khasra No,3726/02. He, however, denied that respondent raised any construction after 3-12-1983. On the other hand he had earlier stated that no construction was raised after the year 1989.
4. Now according to the report of the local commissioner in the earlier suit the respondent was in fact found in possession of Khasra No,3726/2. He, however, reported that the structures appears to be 20 years old.
5. The learned trial Court dealing with the matter believed the said report and dismissed the application.
6. Having thus examined the record, I do not find any element of malice and falsity in the said application. Admittedly the respondent had made a statement assuring the Court that he has not and will not construct and is not in possession of Khasra number of the petitioner whereas he was found to be so in possession.
7. The civil revision is accordingly allowed. Both the judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below are set aside and the suit filed by the respondent is dismissed with costs throughout.