R.S.A. No.1954 of 1985 1 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT PUNJAB AND HARYANA R.S.A. No.1954 of 1985 Date of decision 06.01.2011 Gian Singh and others ......Appellants Versus Babu Singh ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Sh. Gursimran Sidhi, Advocate for Mrs. Alka Sarin, Advocate for the appellants. None for respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN,J. Gian Singh and Gurmit Singh filed civil suit No.170 of 1983 against Babu Singh for the recovery of `7,000/- on account of damages for malicious prosecution. They have filed the suit on the allegation that Babu Singh, defendant filed a false complaint against the plaintiff. The defendant contested the suit on the ground that the complaint was correctly filed on correct facts. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed on 20.01.1983 and two additional issues were framed on 20.01.1984, which are as under:- 1) Whether the defendant prosecuted the plaintiffs-malicious and without any reasonable cause?OPP. 2) If issue No.1 is proved, to whether extent the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation and damages, on account of malicious prosecution?OPP. 3) Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPP. (3a) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?OPD. R.S.A. No.1954 of 1985 2 (3b) Whether Gurmit Singh, plaintiff No.2 has not been properly described? If so to what effect?OPD. 4) Relief. After appreciation of evidence the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Hoshiarpur granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for recovery of `4,000/- as damages. Out of this amount plaintiff No.1 was held to be entitled to receive `3,000/- while plaintiff No.2 was held to be entitled to `1,000/-. Babu Singh, defendant preferred civil appeal No.387 of 1984, before the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur. After perusing the record of the trial Court the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Sub Judge. This RSA No.1954 of 1985 has been filed by Gian Singh and Gurmit Singh appellants (plaintiffs in the trial Court) for restoration of the judgment and decree of the learned Sub Judge. I have heard the learned counsel of the appellant. None appeared for respondent. It is useful to refer Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads as under: “100. Second appeal.- (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. (2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex parte. (3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal R.S.A. No.1954 of 1985 3 shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal. (4) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question. (5) The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question: Provided that, nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question.” In K.K. Kannan (D) By Lrs.-Appellant Versus Koolivathukkal Karikkan Mandi and Ors.-Respondents 2010(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 543, it was held as under:- "While considering the above provision this Court in series of decisions held that before entertaining the second appeal, the High Court has to satisfy that the case involves a substantial question of law. As per sub-section (3), the memorandum of appeal should state the substantial question of law involved in the second appeal. Sub-section (4) mandates that on satisfying that a substantial question of law is involved, the High Court should formulate the said question for consideration. As per sub-section (5), the High Court has to hear the question so formulated and take a decision one way or the other." The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the judgment and the learned Additional District Judge reversing the findings of the learned Sub Judge is erroneous and against law. I have perused the R.S.A. No.1954 of 1985 4 grounds of appeal. Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,the appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court if it involves a substantial question of law. On 17.08.2008 when this RSA came up for hearing before this Court, the counsel appearing for the appellants sought time to frame substantial question of law in this case. Today, the counsel appearing for the appellants conceded that there is no substantial question of law in this appeal. Keeping in view, the law in "K.K. Kannan (D) By Lrs.-Appellant Versus Koolivathukkal Karikkan Mandi and Ors.-Respondents (supra)" no question of law was either framed or arise in this appeal for determination. Even otherwise from perusal of the evidence on record and pleadings of the parties I am of the opinion that the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge is well-reasoned and no interference is called for. The learned Additional District Judge has rightly reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class. Hence this appeal fails and is dismissed. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) 06.01.2011 JUDGE Jyoti 1 Note: Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No