1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Second Appeal No.532/2010 ( Subhash Marotrao Munishwar ..V/s.. Vinod Marotrao Munishwar ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : SMT. V.A NAIK, J. DATE : 6th DECEMBER, 2010. Heard Shri Markandeywar for the appellant. The appellant is the original plaintiff. The defendant is the brother of the appellant. The suit was filed by the plaintiff against his brother seeking a decree for an amount of Rs.50,000/- for malicious prosecution. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had lodged a false report against the plaintiff stating therein that the plaintiff had used abusive words against the defendant and had also threatened him with dire consequences. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that Criminal Case No.641/2000, lodged against the plaintiff, resulted in the acquittal of the plaintiff. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff and admitted that the report was filed. 2 It was pleaded in the written statement by the defendant that some other civil suits were pending between the parties and in order to pressurize the defendant, the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff for damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. The defendant sought for the dismissal of the suit. The trial Court held that the plaintiff had partly succeeded in proving that the defendant had lodged a false and malicious report against the plaintiff at the police station alleging the commission of the offence punishable under section 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to damages of Rs.50,000/- but was entitled to the damages of Rs.22,000/-. The first Appellate Court on a re-appreciation of the evidence on record held that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving that criminal case No.641/2000 had been successive and the plaintiff was acquitted but the plaintiff had been unsuccessful in proving that there was absence of reasonable and probable cause for the defendant to initiate the prosecution against the plaintiff. While recording this finding, the first Appellate Court considered the evidence tendered by the parties 3 on record in a reasonable manner. The findings recorded by the first Appellate Court do not give rise to any substantial question of law. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Judge Tambaskar.