C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 filed the suit claiming damages of Rs. 5,000/- from the appellant and respondents 3 to 7, alleging that on a false report given by the appellant, third respondent (first defendant) who was the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Sirpur, filed criminal cases against the second respondent, who is the son of the first respondent, alleging that he trespassed into the land of appellant, when in fact, that land belongs to the first respondent. Appellant and respondents 3 and 4 filed a common written statement denying the averments in the plaint and putting first respondent to proof of the averments in the plaint. Respondents 5 to 7 remained ex parte. The trial Court framed four issues for trial. In support of their case, respondents 1 and 2 examined themselves as P. Ws. 3 and 1 respectively and two other witnesses p. Ws. 2 and 4 and marked Ex. A-1 to A-17. On behalf of the appellant and respondents 3 and 4, third respondent examined himself as D. W. 1 and marked Ex. B-1. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that respondents 1 and 2 failed to establish that they were honourably acquitted in the criminal cases. Aggrieved thereby, respondents 1 and 2 preferred an appeal to the court of the subordinate Judge, Asifabad, who by the decree and Judgment under appeal decreed the suit with costs as against, the respondents 3 to 7. Hence this second appeal by the second defendant. Respondents 1 and 2 did not prefer an appeal against the dismissal of the suit against respondents 3 to 7.

( 2 ) THE point for consideration is whether respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to claim damages against the appellant and if so to what amount.

( 3 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the failure of the first appellate Court in framing a point for consideration, as contemplated by Rule 31 of Order 41 C. P. C. and its failure to discuss the evidence adduced by the parties in the trial resulted in its coming to wrong conclusion and upsetting the well considered judgment of the trial Court. It is his contention that the first appellate court was in error in awarding subsequent interest at the rate of 18% p. a. on the amount of damages awarded, and was in error in entertaining the appeal when respondents 1 and 2 did not pay Court Fees on the interest pendente lite, as per Section 49 of A. P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, (the Act) by relying on Rai Saheb Seth gopikishen Agarwal v. The Union of India (Ministry of Railways) Represented by general Manager, South Eastern Railway, calcutta. Relying on R. L. Arora v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Yerram Seshi Reddi v. Badduri Chandra Reddi, he contented the failure of the first appellate Court in keeping in view the necessary ingredients for awarding damages in cases relating to malicious prosecution resulted in its passing an erroneous judgment. The contention of the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 is that the well-reasoned judgment of the first appellate Court need not and cannot be interfered with in a Second Appeal in which no substantial question of law is raised.

( 4 ) 1 would first consider the question as to whether the first appellate Court erred in entertaining the appeal against the decree of dismissal of the trial Court when the plaintiffs (respondents 1 and 2) did not pay court fee on the interest accrued pendente lite.

( 5 ) THE first prayer in the plaint is to pass a decree for Rs. 3,500/- for the actual loss of crop due to the criminal cases filed by appellant preventing the plaintiffs (respondents 1 and 2) and their farm servants from entering into their land and for awarding damages of Rs. 1,500/- for malicious prosecution resulting in mental worry to them. In fact there is no prayer in the plaint seeking interest on the amount claimed in the suit as damages. It is well known award of interest subsequent to the filing of suit is governed by Section 34 CPC and is entirely in the discretion of the Court and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document