' ABDUL SATTAR GORAYA, J.---By means of this revision petition the judgment and decree, dated 22- 1-2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge has been brought under challenge.
2. Facts as borne out from the pleading of the parties in brief are that the petitioner is agriculturalist by profession and keeps his residence and abode in Chak Ghumnana Tehsil and District Jhang and getting good reputation in that part of the area and he is commanding influence.
' Respondent No,1 transferred the land measuring 53 kanals, 15 marlas through registered Sale- deed No,3578/1, dated 29-9-1994 to Allah Yar father of the suitor for an amount of Rs,5,00,000 and the possession of the land was also handed over after receiving the sale price. After execution of the registered sale-deed 11 months later, the respondent with mala fide intention and in bad faith, just to cause a damage to the good name of the suitor got registered a Crime Case No,601, dated 13-8-1995 under sections 420, 468, 471 and 506. P.P.C. With Police Station Sadar Jhang against the petitioner and his father. In the said crime report it was alleged that the petitioner and his father committed calculated fraud with him and got transferred the property. The case was investigated and on conclusion of the investigation, the case was found to be false and the police recommended cancellation of the case which cancellation report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Was approved by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 21-12-1996. Resultantly, the case against the petitioner was cancelled. The learned Magistrate in the same order directed the police to initiate the proceeding under section 182, Cr.P.C. Against the plaintiff-respondent. The father of the suitor was admittedly old man of 95 years sitting at the fag end of his life who on account of sheer tension and registration of this case died. Suit was instituted and an amount of Rs,1,00,000 was claimed as damages. Defendant in the written statement denied the allegations and on merit it was claimed that the petitioner had no case and claimed its dismissal. Divergent pleadings of the parties gave rise to as many as 8 issues including 1 of relief.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record. Issues Nos. 6 and 7 are core issues, which were decided together, and both these issues were answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. Onus with regard to issues Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 were upon the defendant but their evidence was closed under Order XVII Rule 3, C.P.C. And they could not offer any rebuttal even on issues Nos.6 and 7. Issue No,2 was also decided in favour of the petitioner. In nutshell the suit was decreed in the terms prayed for and appeal was taken against the said judgment and decree before the learned Additional District Judge, Jhang who vide his judgment and decree, dated 22-1-2001 accepted the appeal and set aside the decree passed by the learned trial Court. Resultantly, the suit was ordered to be dismissed but with no order as to costs. The learned lower appellate Court confined the decision only to the extent of issue No,6. It was held that the petitioner failed to establish that there was malicious prosecution and the reasonable or probable cause, was not in the prosecution, in absence of any evidence the suit could not be decreed. He stated that the term "malice" in a malicious prosecution is not spite or hatred against any individual but strong evidence was required to establish that the prosecution was launched with mala fide. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to cancellation report and the order passed thereon by the learned trial Magistrate by which, the case was cancelled. The order of the learned trial Magistrate which is quasi judicial in nature reads as under:-- "File perused. The case is found false and frivolous during the investigation. I agree with the police report. The case is hereby cancelled. The complainant should be proceeded against under section 182, P. P. C . "
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that these findings and the very fact that the petitioner was put to prosecution and he suffered the agony and pangs of investigation and the persecutory action materially contributed in damaging the reputation of the petitioner and also caused a damage to his name because he was commanding respect in that part of the area. During the course of the arguments learned counsel for the respondent was questioned that the impugned judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate Court does not conform with the definition of a judgment and the learned Additional District Judge has recorded a finding only to the extent of issue No,7 and the remaining were left unattended. Learned counsel for the respondents conceded and stated that he had no objection if the case is remanded to the learned lower appellate Court for recording issue-wise finding. I have also noticed that the learned lower appellate Court has not rendered judgment issue-wise and thus committed material illegality and irregularity in exercise of his jurisdiction. Consequently, with consent of the parties, the impugned judgment and decree, dated 22-1-2001 is set aside. Appeal brought by the respondents shall be deemed to be pending.
Learned District Judge, himself shall decide the appeal preferably within two months from the receipt of this order. Since this is a consent order, no order as to costs.