' On 18-11-1987, Muhammad Boota and 4 others respondents filed suit for the recovery of Rs,24,500 as damages against Muhammad Tufail petitioner in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Toba Tek Singh.
The facts leading to this suit briefly are that on 18-12-1985, Muhammad Tufail petitioner lodged F.I.R.
Under section 452/448/147/148, P.P.C. At P.S. City Gojra against the plaintiffs-respondents. The respondents were tried by the Court and were acquitted on 23-12-1986. The revision filed by the petitioner against the acquittal of the plaintiffs-respondents was also dismissed. So, the plaintiffs- respondents have claimed the suit money as damages for their malicious prosecution. In the plaint, it has been averred that the criminal case lodged by the petitioner against the plaintiffs- respondents was totally false and as a result of their malicious prosecution, they have suffered not only pecuniary loss but also physical and mental torture. The suit was resisted whereon three issues were framed. The parties led evidence. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 18-11-1989.
Feeling aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed appeal which was partly accepted, judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and suit of the plaintiffs-respondents was decreed to the extent of Rs,10,000. Hence this revision.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submitted that since the Assistant Commissioner had not declared the prosecution of the plaintiffs-respondents in case F.I.R. No, 118/85 as false and malicious, therefore, the suit even to the extent of Rs,10,000 as damages could not be decreed by the Appellate Court.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel has failed to quote any provision of Qanun-e-Shahadat under which judgment passed in a criminal case would be relevant in a civil suit for damages on account of false and malicious prosecution.
' The fact that the petitioner had lodged F.I.R. At the police station in which the plaintiffs- respondents were prosecuted and ultimately acquitted, is not disputed. While appearing as a witness, Muhammad Boota plaintiff-respondent stated:-- {{URDU TEXT}} ' He further stated:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' Muhammad Asghar P.W.1 stated:- {{URDU TEXT}} Muhammad Hand P.W.2 made similar statement. The appellate Court was the final Court on facts and was quite competent to believe/disbelieve the evidence disbelieved/believed by the trial Court. The appellate Court has applied its mind to the relevant facts and evidence and has given cogent reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at by it. The submissions made by the learned counsel are devoid of force and substance. I do not see any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect in the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court.
4. Pursuant to the above discussion, the revision application is dismissed in limine.