WWSi^II tlM TM6..H1G:H COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPURfCHHATTISGARH). WR]T PETm.ON (227) NO.^ 3' tf /201 1 eEl1B(2&j£R RLAIJ< l: Abhaynarayan pandey^, S/0 Shri Adity Narayan pandey , Aged about 48 year. R/0. Village- Dipadihkala, P.S. Shankargarh, District- Sarguja (C.G.) Present Address- Khijurpath Minj R/o Namnakala, Ambikapur, Tah. Ambikapur, Dist Sarguja (C.G.) SESEfflfiENT DEEfflSAMT ..fs'^-""" 8.-- ^ v-\ <)^.V •^?>*\.^! l^.i / / ^ VERSUS 1. AjmerSingh, S/OKevli singh, Agedabout 38 year, Vetenary Doctor, Village Pasta, P.S. Balrampur, District Sarguja (C.G.) R/0. Village Kedarpur Mission Chauk Ambikapur, P.s. Ambikapur. District Sarguja (C.G.) 2. Sapan Chaudhari S/0. S. Chaudhari, aged about 35 years, S.H.O. Ambikapur District Sarguja (C.G.) 3. Hemant Kharre, S/0 Not Know Aged about 50 year, S.H.O. P.S. Koni, District Bilaspur (C.G.) /A. Shivram Prasad Kalluri, S/0 Ganga Raju, Aged about 40 year, S.P. Balrampur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 5. Brajesh Tiwari S/0 Not Know, Aged about 35 years/ S.F. Platoon Commander Balrampur Sarguja, District Sarguja (C.G.) 6. State.of C.C. Through : Collectpr , - Sarguja, Ambikapur (C.G.)' . ^'•- WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The pefltfoner named above most respectful.ly beg to prefer this writ p'etttfon as under: fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition(227) N0,734/2011 PETITIONER : Abhaynarayan Pandey RESPONDENTS : Versus Ajmer Singh and others Appearance: Shri S.C. Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Miss. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.6. WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (07.02.2011) In a suit for malicious prosecution instituted by the petitioner/plaintifi, the learned Trial Court has rejected petitioner's application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC for framing additional issues. (2) The petitioner has claimed compensation of Rs.20,000/- from the defendant for maliciously prosecuting him. (3) On 27/09/2010 (Annexure P-3) the leamed Trial Court fi-amed issue No.l as to whether the defendants No.l to 5 have maliciously prosecuted the plaintiff and issue No.2 as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.20,000/- from the defendants No.l to 5 as damages. . (4) By the subject application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC ^Annexure P-4) the plaintiff has proposed fhat in view of the /^ .. ^ . ^ . . . . . . . . - pleadings made in the plaint and denied in the written statement ISB \'^-"' ...^' 2 ^ additional issues as proposed in clause (a) to (d) of para 2 of the application needs to be framed. According to him, if the proposed issues are not framed, the plaintiffmay be prejudiced in establishing his claim before the Trial Court. (5) The Trial Court has rejected application aflsr observing that the proposed issues are already covered in the issues already framed by the Court. (6) This Court has perosed the pleadings as well as issues earlier fi-amed vide Annexure P-3 and the proposed issues in para 2 of the subject application. This Court is satisfied that the proposed issues are covered in the earlier framed issues in as much as proposed issue No.2 (a), (b) and (c) are covered under the first issue fi-amed earlier. The issue regarding plaintifFs inability to pay court fee has not been framed earlier but yet since the trial is in progress and if it is ultimately found that the plaintifF is entitled to obtain damages from the defendants, the question ofpayment ofcourt fee shall be decided by the trial court and in any case the court fee can be recovered from the amount which the judgment debtor would eventually deposit if the suit succeeds. (7) There is no substance in this writ petition which fails and is hereby dismissed. However, it is observed that the petitioner shall be entitled to lead evidence on all the proposed issues as same are covered in the earlier framed issues. Sd//~ Prashant Kumar Mislira Judge 4'v"'