The instant Regular First Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.06.2016 passed by Civil Judge, Lahore whereby the suit for damages filed by the Appellant was dismissed.
2. Relevant facts of the case are that the Appellant filed a suit for damages against the Respondents. After recording of evidence, the suit was dismissed on the ground that the Appellant failed to prove the damages caused to her . The said judgment and decree has been challenged by the Appellant through present appeal.
3. This appeal was admitted for regular hearing on 12.01.2017. Despite service of notice and subsequently citation in the press, the Respondents did not opt to appear before the Court, hence they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Court dated 25.04.2017.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant inter alia contended that while passing impugned judgment and decree, the evidence produced by the Appellant was not properly considered; that the Appellant proved her case through un- rebutted evidence even then the suit was dismissed; that the Appellant proved through the statements of the witnesses that she suffered a huge monitory loss along with loss of reputation due to filing of forged and fabricated suits by the Respondents.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Record reveals that a suit before the trial Court was filed by the Appellant claiming Rs.80 million as damages in respect of false and frivolous suits filed by the Respondents coupled with mental torture and tensions etc. The ground agitated by the counsel for the Appellant is that the trial Court has not taken into consideration the evidence produced by the Appellant. Perusal of impugned judgment and decree reveals that the Respondents contested the suit and filed written statement however , they absented themselves from the Court and resultantly were proceeded against ex-parte and the trial Court, after considering the evidence of Appellant, proceeded to dismiss the suit. We have noted that though Appellant had claimed Rs.80 million as damages yet had not produced any documentary proof or details of damages caused to her rather only produced documents in respect of pending litigation between the parties. The relevant part of the impugned judgment and decree reads as follows: "The plaintiff has given the details of all the litigations which is ambiguous one. As a matter of fact, the defendants firstly filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction on 09.02.2012 titled as "Muhammad Hassan Jamal Illyas and others v. Allah Ditta and others" in which the present plaintiff was arrayed as defendant at Serial No.10. In the said suit, the plaintiff arrived at a compro mise with the defendants vide compromise deed (ExhP-6) in which it is categorically stated that the defendant No.10/present plaintiff has compensated the plaintiffs/present defendant and they have no objection upon the ownership of the present plaintiff and said suit was dismissed as withdrawn to the extent of defendant No.10/present plaintiff vide order dated 07.09.2012, which was not dismissed on merit rather due to redressal of grievance by the present plaintiff".
7. In order to sustain an action for malicious prosecution, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in "Muhammad Akram v . Mst. Farman Bibi " (PLD 1990 SC 28 ) formulated six (06) elements/ingredients which are as follows: "(i) That the plaintiff was prosecuted by the defendant; (ii) That the prosecution ended in plaintiffs favour;
(iii) That the defendant acted without reasonable and probable cause;
(iv) That the defendant was actuated by malice;
(v) That the proceedings had interfered with plaintiffs liberty and had also affected her reputation; and finally
(vi) That the plaintiff had suffered damage."
8. Similar view was taken in "Messrs Mehran Electronics Company through Partner v. National Bank of Pakistan " (2017 CLD 1642 ) by holding that one cannot be held entitled for the damages for malicious prosecution unless the above ingredients are fulfilled and established. Apart from other questions of fact the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the Appellant herself opted not to appear before the learned trial Court as witness to prove the contents of plaint as only she can personally depose about the alleged damage caused to her reputation etc while the attorney cannot depose about the personal feelings and incidents occurred to prove any damage to Plaintif f/Appellant. The trial Court while dismissing the suit observed that the essential ingredients i.e. termination of proceedings in favour of plaintif f, initiation of proceedings without probable cause and causing of damages to the plaintif f are missing.
9. In view of the above situation, we fully agree with the findings of the trial Court and do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and decree which has been passed in consonance with the spirit of law, hence, does not call for interference by us.
9(sic) As a sequel to above, this Appeal is hereby dismissed .