KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.---This Revision Application is directed against judgment dated 31-03-2016, passed by the learned District Judge Umerkot, dismissing Civil Appeal No.14 of 2015, re: Allah Rakhio v.
Muhammad Usman and others , filed against the order dated 16-07-2015 and decree dated 23-07-2015, passed by learned 1st Senior Civil Judge Umerkot rejecting the plaint of the F.C. Suit No.95 of 2014 re: Allah Rakhio v.
Muhammad Usman and others under the provisions of Order VII, Rule 1 1, C.P .C.
2. Briefly , the facts of the case are that the applicant Allah Rakhio filed F.C. Suit No.95 of 2014 for damages. The case of the applicant as set out in the plaint in brief is that an F.I.R. No.26 of 2012, was lodged at Police Station Bhoro Naro against the applicant and others for offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 504, P.P.C. by respondent No.1 Muhammad Usman. The respondent No.2 Wali Muhammad, who happened to be the son of respondent No.1, had acted as witness. After the trial, the applicant/plaintif f Allah Rakhio and others were acquitted of the charge by the learned 1st Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Umerkot vide judgment dated 17-12-2013, passed in the criminal case, emanating from the said F.I.R. The applicant/plaintif f, therefore, filed the subject suit for damages on account of malicious prosecution against the respondents in the Court of 1st Senior Civil Judge, Umerkot. The plaint of the said suit was rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 16-07-2015 and decree dated 23-07-2015, and Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2015, filed by the applicant/plaintif f against aforesaid order and decree of the learned trial Court was dismissed by the learned District Judge Umerkot, vide Judgment dated 31-03-2016. The applicant/plaintif f being aggrieved by the said Judgment, order and decree, passed by the learned Courts below , has preferred this Revision application.
3. It is inter alia contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the learned Trial Court without allowing the applicant/plaintif f to adduce evidence has rejected the plaint of his subject suit; that the impugned order and decree passed by the learned Trial Court rejecting the plaint have been maintained by the learned District Judge Umerkot vide Judgment dated 31-03-2016, by dismissing the appeal filed by him against the order and decree passed by the learned Trial Court, without considering such aspect of the case; and, that impugned order , decree and judgment passed by both the learned Courts below are illegal. He, therefore, prays that the case may be remanded to the learned Trial Court for decision on merits after allowing the parties to adduce the evidence.
4. Learned Assistant Advocate General has mainly contended that the order , decree and judgment passed by the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court respectively , are well reasoned; that the applicant/plaintif f Allah Rakhio and others were acquitted of the charge in the subject criminal case by the learned 1st Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Umerkot by giving them benefit of doubt; that no finding regarding the case, lodged by the respondent, being false was rendered by the learned Trial Court while passing the acquittal judgment in favour of the applicant and others; and, that the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the plaint of the subject suit. He, therefore, prays that this revision application may be dismissed.
5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material brought on record.
6. From a perusal of the record, it would be seen that copy of the Judgment passed by the learned 1st Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Umerkot annexed with the memo. of his plaint before the Trial Court has not been filed by the applicant with his Revision Application, although it was mandatorily required to be filed with the Revision Application which adversely reflects upon the applicant. Since the copy of the Judgment passed by the Court of 1st Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Umer kot has not been filed, therefore, I am constrained only to see the order and Judgment passed by both the learned Courts below . The learned Trial Court after going through the Judgment of the learned 1st Civil Judge and Judic ial Magistrate Umerkot has observed that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, for the reasons mentioned therein, while extending benefit of doubt to the accused including the applicant, the learned trial Court had acquitted them. The ingredients for establishing the suit for damages on account of malicious prosecution, are namely the plaintif f was prosecuted by the defendant; the prosecution ended in plaintif f's favour; the defendant acted without reasonable and probable cause; the defendant was actuated by malice; the proceedings had withheld plaintif f's liberty and had also affected his or her reputation and the plaintif f had suffered damages. Patently , there is no question of prosecution of the applicant in the subject criminal case without reasonable or probable cause; the applicant's liberty was not allegedly curtailed by keeping him in custody; no finding regarding the case being false having been rendered, but the learned Trial Court by extending benefit of doubt on prosecution's failure to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, had passed the acquittal judgment; and, the particulars of the damages have also not been shown in the plaint. And thus, most of the ingredients for a suit on account of malicious prosecution are not available in the case one in hand. Under these circumstances, I am of the consid ered view that impugned order and decree passed by the 'learned Trial Court rejecting the plaint of the subject suit of the plaintif f filed for damages on account of malicious prosecution and the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court dismissing the appeal filed against said order and decree of the learned Trial Court suffering from no illegality or any jurisdictional detect, do not call for any interference. The learned counsel for the applicant has also not been able to point out any illegality or any jurisdictional defect in the impugned order , decree and judgment, passed by the learned Courts below , attracting exercise of jurisdiction under the provisions of section 115 of code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Accordingly , this revision application being bereft of merit is dismissed with no order as to costs.