RSA No.2721 of 2010 (O&M) ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2721 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:15.10.2010. Kartar Singh and another …Appellants Versus Punjab State (Home Department) and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. K.S.Dhanora, Advocate, for the appellants. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The plaintiffs are in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below whereby their suit for recovery of Rs.19 lacs as damages from the defendants, has been dismissed. Shorn of unnecessary details, the plaintiffs have filed the suit against the various functionaries of the State impleading them by their designation, for recovery of damages on the ground of malicious prosecution. It is alleged that 2 FIRs were registered against the plaintiffs at the instance of Charanjit Singh Sidhu which were quashed by the High Court. On the basis of evidence available on record, the learned Court below had found that the plaintiffs could have filed a suit against Charanjit Singh Sidhu and others and by impleading those police officers who were responsible for motivated action, as alleged, but the suit in the present form was not maintainable. It was also found that the plaintiffs have already filed a suit for damages against Charanjit Singh Sidhu and others on 29.08.2005 and the present suit was filed on 03.04.2006 subsequent thereto. It was also observed that in the absence of the name of a particular officer who is allegedly instrumental in the malicious prosecution, as alleged, the State would not be in a position to fix the responsibility of that officer in case it is so held by the Civil Court. Thus, the suit was found totally bereft of material particulars and as such, the same was dismissed. - 1- RSA No.2721 of 2010 (O&M) ****** Learned counsel for the appellants has though narrated the facts of the case in detail but he could not point out any error in the judgment and decree of the Courts below wherein they have held that the suit in the present form was not maintainable against the functionaries of the State who have been sued with their designation only and not named in particular. He has also failed to raise any substantial question of law in order to compel this Court to take a view different from the view taken by the Courts below and to grant a decree as prayed for. Hence, this appeal is hereby dismissed in limine, however, without any order as to costs. October 15, 2010. ( RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ) vinod* JUDGE - 2-