1 IBEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT $§MI£ Bench BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION NO. [APPLICANTS PLAINTIFFS VERSUS NON :APPLICANT b’EFENDANT I x x 5 K (/Indrajeet, S/o. Anujram Lodhi aged about 49 years, occupation — agriculturist, R/o. village Baajguda, Tah. Khairagarh, Distt. .Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) v CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OFCIVIL PROCEDURE,» 1908 l %\ /2004 Rajkumar, S/ o. Mauni Lodhi aged about 51 years, Sanjay, S/o. Rajkumar Lodhi, aged about 28 years, Bot are agriculturists, resident of village — Baajbuda, Tah. Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) / r (EV M / h / HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision 72 of 2004 V A ' licantsl : Rajkumar & Another Plaintlffs Versus Non-a ellantl : lndrajeet Defen ant Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aqarwal, J.) resent : Shri RN Jha,Advocate for applicants. Shri‘RS Baghel, Advocate for respondent/non—applicant. l ' ORAL ORDER z (Passed on 10‘" day of March, 2010) l l ' 1n Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 03 02 2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Khairagarh, Distt. Rajhandgaon, in Civil Appeal No. 5-B/O3, affirming the judgment and decree dated 13 10 2003 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-l, Khairagarh Distt Rainandgaon In‘ Civil Suit 'No. 6-B/2000, «x whereby and whereunder the plaintiffs suit has been dismissed, the instant revision has been preferred by the applicants. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the non applicant/Indrajeet lodged a FIR With Police Station Chhuikhadan Distt Rainandgaon against the plaintiffs/applicants herein. The Police registered a criminal case and challan was tiled against the plaintiffs under Section 435 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for shdrt ‘IPC’). Vide judgment. dated 05.01 .2002 in Criminal Case No. 750/99, the Additional Judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh, acquitted the‘l applicants holding that prosecution has failed'to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. Thereafter, the applicants have l r l preferred the civil suit against the non-applicant for Rs. 25,000/- for i I/A ii i i i i ' v P .w the damage and Ioss to their reputation caused due to malicious criminal prosecution by the non-applicant. 3. Learned court below, on appreciation of evidence led in the case, held that the applicants haVe failed to prove that the report lodged by the non-applicant was false and with malice against the applicants and dismissed the suit. 4. There—against, an appeal preferred by the applicants, was also dismissed affirming the aforesaid hndings. Hence this revision. Shit ‘RN Jha, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, by referring Para 3 & 4 of statement of Rajkumar (AW-1) would submit that the court below has not appreciated the evidence adduced by the applicants in its proper perspective. He has further referred Ex. P(1/judgment of the criminal court and contended that the applicants have been acquitted from the charges leveled against them, which proves malice intentionof the non-applicant to harm applicant’s reputation, and therefore, both the courts below have erred in dismissing the suit of the applicants. On the other hand, Shri RS Baghel, learned counsel appearing for non-applicant would submit that the findings recorded by both the courts below are based on appreciation of evidence and revision deserves to be dismissed. l have heard the counsel appearing for the parties, perused the order impugned and record of both the courts below. The findings, whether or'not with an intention to harm applicant‘s reputation the said report has been lodged knowing it to be false by the non-applicant is essentially a finding of fact. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the applicants/plaintiffs have «as failed to prove that the said report was lodged with an intention to harass the applicants, and dismissed the suit. It is trite law that in exercise of revisionai jurisdiction, this court can only interfere with the findings if the findings are based on no evidence or perverse. Nothing has been brought by the applicants J to suggest that the orders passed by both the courts below are based on no evidence or finding is perverse. In view of above, in the’considered opinion of this court, the us applicants have failed to point out any jurisdictional illegality or material illegality committed by both the courts below in passing the judgment and‘decree impugned. 11. In view of above, the revision, being devoid of substance is liable tobe and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. / \ / // sal— //- g, Ag“M‘A‘ Sahu . / / $- 3o3ge . / a. . / ,