N.K. Balakrishnan, J.

The defendant in a suit for malicious prosecution is the appellant. The suit was decreed by the trial court directing him to pay Rs.1 lakh to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of payment. In the appeal, the appellate court confirmed the decree with regard to the compensation of Rs.75,000/- decreed in favour of the plaintiff as general damages but set aside the decree with regard to the special damages claimed by the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. As against the dismissal of the special damages of Rs.25,000/- the plaintiff had filed Cross Objection No.92/2009.

2. A complaint was given by the defendant to the police against the plaintiff and another alleging commission of offences under Sections 341, 342, 294(b) and 506(ii) r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. Based on the complaint, the police registered a crime as Crime No.88/1998. After investigation, the police filed a refer report. Hence, the defendant filed a protest complaint before the learned Magistrate as CMP No.4491/1998. On 25.11.1999 to which date, the case was posted for trial for recording the evidence of the complainant, he was absent and so, a petition was filed on his behalf for excusing his absence. That petition was allowed and the case was then adjourned to 28.1.2000. On that date also the complainant was absent stating that he had gone to Madras for treatment. Hence, again the case was posted to 25.2.2000. On that date a petition was filed along with a copy of the medical certificate but, the learned Magistrate was not inclined to accept the medical certificate produced and so, ultimately the accused were discharged under Section 245(2) of Cr.P.C.

3. It was contended by the plaintiff that the defendant had animosity towards him which arose in connection with the formation of a road through the plaintiff's property. There were various civil and criminal cases in which the plaintiff and the defendant were parties. It was contended that the complaint was filed by the defendant maliciously without any reasonable and probable cause and so the plaintiff sustained huge financial loss and other difficulties and thus the suit was filed claiming a total amount of Rs.1 lakh as compensation.

4. The defendant resisted the suit contending that he had no animosity towards the plaintiff. The defendant was the President of the local panchayath. Since the plaintiff had closed the pathway passing through his property, the defendant as the President of the Panchayath had to intervene in the matter based on the request made by the public. Thereafter, cases were foisted by the plaintiff against the defendant. The defendant contended that the facts stated in the complaint (C.C.No.102/1999) are true and bonafide. But the police referred the case because of the pressure and influence exerted by the plaintiff and that was why the appellant had to file a protest complaint before the learned Magistrate. It was only because the defendant was hospitalized at Madras he could not appear in court to tender evidence in support of the allegations made by him in the complaint, the learned counsel submits. It was further stated that the complaint was not filed maliciously. All other allegations made in the plaint were also denied by the defendant.

5. The plaintiff and one witness were examined as PW1 and PW2 and Exts.A1 to A18 were marked. The defendant got himself examined as DW1 and two other witnesses were examined as DW2 and DW3. Besides, Exts.B1 to B11 were also marked.

6. The trial court, after analysing the evidence granted a decree to realise Rs.1 lakh. The counter claim was dismissed. The appellate court modified the decree to Rs.75,000/-.

7. Adv.Sri.P.B.Suresh Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant/appellant submits that the courts below failed to note that there was wordy altercation between the plaintiff and defendant on 4.12.1997. The incident took place in the lift. It is furt