R. S. A. No. 1337 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 1337 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : April 06, 2011 Bharat Singh .... Appellant Vs. Partap Singh and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Narender Kumar Vashist, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 4638-C of 2011 and Main Appeal : Defendant Bharat Singh having failed in both the courts below has filed the instant second appeal. Since the amount claimed in the suit was Rs.25,000/- only, Regular Second Appeal is not maintainable in view of Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This fact was pointed out to counsel for the appellant on the preceding date of hearing. In view thereof, appellant has moved C. M. No. 4638-C of 2011 to treat the Regular Second Appeal as Civil Revision petition. The prayer is allowed. The appeal is treated as Civil Revision petition. Be registered as such. R. S. A. No. 1337 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Respondents/plaintiffs Partap Singh and Surender Singh filed suit against defendant/appellant for recovery of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for their malicious prosecution at the hands of defendant/appellant. Admittedly, defendant lodged FIR No.470 dated 24.11.1997 under Sections 452, 427, 380 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station Sadar Dadri against the plaintiffs and some other persons. The plaintiffs were arrested during investigation of the said case and were granted bail on 05.09.1998. After attending eight dates of hearing in the said case, discharge report was submitted by the Police in the Court on 27.03.2001 and accordingly, learned Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri, vide order dated 27.03.2001, discharged the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed Rs.25,000/-as compensation for their malicious prosecution in the instant case. The defendant, while admitting that he had lodged the instant FIR, inter alia pleaded that discharge report was submitted by the Police in connivance with the plaintiffs and notice thereof was never served on the defendant. It was also pleaded that plaintiffs suffered no pecuniary loss or loss of reputation by lodging of the aforesaid case by the defendant. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Charkhi Dadri, vide judgment and decree dated 17.08.2009, partially decreed the plaintiffs' case holding plaintiff no.1 only to be entitled to Rs.12,500/-. First appeal preferred by defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District R. S. A. No. 1337 of 2011 (O&M) 3 Judge, Bhiwani, vide judgment and decree dated 12.11.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. It is undisputed that defendant lodged FIR against the plaintiffs. It is also undisputed that plaintiffs were arrested in the said case and were later on released on bail. It is also undisputed that after investigation, Police submitted discharge report in the case and the said discharge report was accepted by learned Judicial Magistrate, who discharged the plaintiffs. Consequently, suit of plaintiff no.1 has been rightly decreed because he was maliciously prosecuted by the defendant without any basis. The very fact that the Police, after investigation, did not present challan for prosecution of plaintiffs and rather presented discharge report, which was accepted by the Court, would depict that case lodged by the defendant was false. Suit of plaintiff no.2 has not been decreed because he did not step into the witness-box. However, plaintiff no.1 stepped into the witness-box and proved his case, which also stands proved in view of admitted facts mentioned herein before. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that discharge report was procured by plaintiffs in connivance with the Police and that the defendant/appellant was not given notice of the discharge report. The contention cannot be accepted because in this case, validity of R. S. A. No. 1337 of 2011 (O&M) 4 the discharge report or the consequent discharge order passed in the criminal case is not to be adjudicated upon. The fact remains that the Police submitted discharge report and the same was accepted by the Court. In addition to it, discharge order of the plaintiffs in the criminal case stands unchallenged till today. On service of notice of the instant suit, the defendant became aware of the discharge report and the discharge order passed in the criminal case. However, even thereafter, the defendant did not challenge the same in any manner. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is completely misconceived. Concurrent finding recorded by the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and by the admitted facts. The same does not suffer from any illegality or perversity so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Judgments of the courts below also do not suffer from any jurisdictional error. Scope for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is limited as compared to second appellate jurisdiction. In the instant case, even in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction, interference would not have been warranted with the judgments of the courts below, and therefore, question of interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction does not arise. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. April 06, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE