SYED MUSADIQ HUSSAIN GILANI, J.---Heard. Contends that the suit for the recovery of Rs.4 Crore as damages for defamation, mental torture and malicious prosecution, was filed against him by the respondents wrongly. He contested the suit, and put in written statement, as well as application under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. For rejection of the plaint. The said application was contested by the respondents, and after hearing arguments, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the same, vide order, dated 22-2-2007. The petitioner stressed that while passing the impugned order, the trial Court ignored the material point in issue. Respondents were prosecuted in accordance with law, and there was no reason for filing suit for the recovery of damages. The trial Court was, therefore, bound to reject the plaint filed by the respondents without proceeding further, and by not doing so, material illegality was committed.
2. It is clear that parties are closely related to each other. From the petitioner, damages have been claimed, for malicious prosecution. The question involved is a question of fact, which is to be determined after recording pro and contra evidence of both the parties. The respondents have properly valued the suit for the purpose of court-fee, and jurisdiction, and also disclosed the cause of action which is not barred by law. In this regard, the discretion which is neither perverse nor arbitrary, has been properly exercised. There is also committed no illegality to warrant interference in revision. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is dismissed in limine.