' The brief facts out of which present revision petition arises are that the petitioner filed suit for recovery of Rs,9,50,000 as damages for malicious prosecution in the Court of Civil Judge 1st Class, Multan. The contents of plaint reveal that employees of Punjab Small Industries Corporation, 'Multan established Housing Society in the name of Punjab Small Industries Corporation Employees Cooperative Housing Society Khanewal Road, Multan. The Deputy Director of Corporation is working as Finance Secretary of the Housing Society; whereas petitioner No,2 is Regional Director of said PSIC and working as General Secretary of the Society. The petitioner No,3 is employee of the Corporation and petitioner No,4 is Chowkidar of the Housing Society. The Society purchased the land measuring 27 Kanals and 10 Marlas situated in village Durana Langana Tehsil Multan from respondent No,1 for consideration of Rs,5,50,000 vide sale dated 23-1-1990 on the basis of said sale vide Mutation No,2031 which was sanctioned in favour of the petitioners on 26-2-1990. The possession was delivered to the Society at the time of execution of an agreement to sell. The possession was duly incorporated in the Revenue Record. The Society has retained the possession of land in question from the respondents till filing of the suit. Respondent/defendant No,1 wanted to take possession of the land in question from the Society by illegal and coercive measures.
Therefore, he started interfering in the possession of the Society. The criminal cases were registered against respondents Nos.1 and 2 and some other persons. Six cases were got registered at the instance of Fida Hussain, petitioner No,4. Respondent/defendant No,1 had filed an application for registration of a case against the petitioner/plaintiffs and others before the S.S.P. Multan and later on, filed Constitutional petition before this Court for registration of a case, which was dismissed with the observation that respondent had alternative remedy to file a private complaint.
Respondent/defendant No,1 filed a private complaint under sections 148/149,427/448, 506, P.P.C.
Before the District Magistrate, Multan against the petitioner/plaintiffs. The petitioners were acquitted after trial, with observation that the complainant had dragged the accused persons uselessly and harassed them for terminating them from service. The petitioners being aggrieved filed aforesaid suit for damages against the respondents. The respondents filed written statement controverting the allegations levelled in the plaint. Out of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:---
(1) Whether the plaintiffs have not come in the Court with clean hands and the suit is liable to be dismissed? OPD
(2) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action or locus standi to file the suit? OPD
(3) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of the parties? OPD
(4) Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD
(5) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to bring the suit? OPD
(6) Whether the suit is false and vexatious and the defendants are entitled to recover special costs? OPD
(7) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover Rs,9,50,000 as damages on account of malicious prosecution from defendants? OPP
(8) Relief.
' The learned trial Court decreed the suit to the extent of Rs,60,000 vide judgment and decree, dated 17-1-2001. The respondents being aggrieved filed appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, who accepted the same vide judgment and decree, dated 22-3-2003.
Hence, the present revision.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioners submits that the respondents had sold the land in question to the petitioners and possession w.e.f, on had already been handed over to the petitioners by the ' respondents, therefore, the respondents with mala fide intention, filed a complaint against the petitioners. The petitioners were acquitted honourably, therefore, the learned trial Court was justified to decree the suit for damages and the First Appellate Court erred in law to reverse the findings of the learned trial Court without adverting to the reasonings of the learned trial Court. He further submits that First Appellate Court decided the case by misreading and non-reading of the record.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record.
4. The superior Court has laid down parameters of for the grant damages qua malicious prosecution, which are reproduced hereunder:--- ' "It is settled principle of law that in suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff is under the onus to show following ingredients for the grant of damages for malicious prosecution---
(i) he was prosecuted by the defendant on a criminal charges;
(ii) the prosecution terminated in favour of the plaintiff;
(iii) the prosecution was malicious;
(iv) the prosecution was without reasonable and probable cause;
(v) the proceedings had interfered with the plaintiffs liberty and had also affected his reputation; and finally,
(vi) the plaintiff had suffered damages.
' The aforesaid principles are highlighted by the superior Courts in the following judgments:-- ' Abdul Rauf v. Abdul Razzaq and another PLD 1994 SC 476; Chief Officer District Council v. Haji Sultan Safdar 1999 YLR 1963, Muhammad Akram v. Mst. Farman Bi PLD 1990 SC 28, Abdur Rashid v.
State Bank of Pakistan and others PLD 1970 Kar. 344; Messrs Vinder Textile Mills v. IDBP 1999 YLR 1188.
5. The learned trial Court granted the damages to the extent of Rs,60,000 without aderting to the aforesaid principle, laid down by the superior Courts; whereas the First Appellate Court had appraised evidence keeping in view the aforesaid principle laid down by the superior Courts and First Appellate Court has given findings after proper appreciation of evidence on record in the following terms:- ' "The respondents No,1 to 4/plaintiffs have claimed that a false complaint was lodged against them by the appellants/defendants wherein respondents No,5 and 6 defendants No,2 and 3 were witnesses which was dismissed and they were acquitted by the Court of law and due to the above litigation, they were defamed, as such, they are entitled to recover Rs,9,50,000 from the appellants/defendants as damages. On the other hand, it has been claimed by the appellants/defendants that the respondents/ plaintiffs came at the spot on 13-3-1993 and destroyed his standing crop and have also made threats to kill him, therefore, he lodged private complaint which was not without any probable cause, as such, claim of respondents/ plaintiffs for awarding compensation/damages is unfounded. It is a well-settled that the following are the ingredients, required to be established in such kind of suits to prove the claim of damages by the plaintiffs:---
(i) he was prosecuted by the defendant on a criminal charge (ii) the prosecution terminated in favour of plaintiffs, (iii) the prosecution was malicious, (iv) the prosecution was without reasonable and probable cause (v) the proceedings had interfered with the plaintiff's liberty and had also affected his reputation and finally, the plaintiff had suffered damages."
6. I have examined the evidence on record. The First Appellate Court has rightly observed that the petitioners failed to bring the case within the parameters prescribed by the superior Courts in the aforesaid judgments, or First Appellate Court was justified to accept the appeal of the respondents.
It is settled principle of law that First Appellate Court is well within the right to reappraise the evidence on record as per law laid down by the superior Court in Khalid Mehmood Syed's case 1985 CLC 657. The learned counsel of the petitioners failed to point out that judgment of First Appellate Court is in violation of law laid down by the superior Courts in the aforesaid judgment. It is settled principle of law that judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution, therefore, the First Appellate Court was justified to accept the appeal of the respondents.
' In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.