1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.---The relevant facts are that in pursuance of the F.I.R. Lodged by the petitioner against the respondents accusing them of the theft of his jute bags the respondents were tried under section 379, P.P.C. But were acquitted by a learned Magistrate on 30-4-1984.
2. After they were acquitted the respondents filed a suit against the petitioner for recovery of Rs.24,000 as damages for malicious prosecution. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court in toto but on appeal while the decree was affirmed on the merits, the amount of damages was reduced to Rs.15,000. The revision filed by the petitioner having failed hence this petition for, leave to appeal.
3. 'It is submitted that the principles on which a decree in suit for malicious prosecution can be awarded have not been correctly followed by the Courts below in so far as no clear finding has been given by them that the prosecution launched by the petitioner against them for theft was not without probable cause. Reliance is placed on Abdul Rashid v. The State Bank of Pakistan etc. PLD,1970 Karachi 344.
4. Security Rs.2,500.
5. The appeal shall be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add further documents if any and fixed for hearing at an early date.
6. In the meanwhile, the impugned decree shall be suspended on the petitioner's furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the trial Court for payment of the decretal amount in the event of the failure of this appeal.