Jurisdiction of Civil Court in a suit for damages.

The three second appeals arise out of three suits filed by the appellants to recover damages from the respondent defendant for malicious prosecution. The defendant is the same in all the three suits.

In respect of an occurrence on 21st May, 1942, the defendant filed a complaint against the appellants and others for offences under sections 148, 149, 323, 324 352 and 504, Indian Penal Code. A prima facie case was made out, and so a charge was framed by the Magistrate against appellants and others for offences under sections 323 and 324, Indian Penal Code. The accused then entered upon their defence and examined defence witnesses. The Magistrate, after considering the defence evidence, acquitted the appellants. The appellants thereupon instituted the suits in the Court of the District Munsif, Vijayawada, for damages for malicious prosecution.

It may be mentioned, the appellants in S.A. No. 793 of 1947 filed a complaint against the defendant, alleging that the defendant and others came and beat him on 21st May, 1942, at about 4 p.m. There were thus two complaints one by the defendant against the appellants in the second appeals, and the other by the appellant in S.A. No. 783 of 1947, against the defendant and others. In both the complaints the date of occurrence was mentioned as 21st May 1942 and time of occurrence as 4 p. m. The case of the defendant was, that the appellants came and beat him in his field whereas the case against him was that he and others came and beat the appellants on a tank bund. The difference between the two complaints is only as to the scene of occurrence, the date and time of occurrence being the same. The cases were therefore tried as case and counter. The complaint filed by the defendant ended in acquittal, as stated already. It is not clear what happened to the complaint filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 328 of 1944.

In the Court of the District Munsiff, both parties examined witnesses and let in evidence to show that the complaint filed by each party was the true one and that the other was false. Both sides had sustained injuries and the plaintiffs though they let in evidence to show that the occurrence was only on the tank bund and not on the field of the defendant, as alleged by him, did not let in any evidence to satisfy the Court as to how the injuries on the person of the defendant were caused. They merely suggested that the injuries on his person were self-inflicted

The learned District Munsiff, after discussing the evidence in detail held that either, each party beat the other in the field of the defendant, or the defendant was first beaten in his field by the plaintiffs and others, and thereupon the plaintiff in O.S. No. 328 of 1944 was beaten, by the defendant and others on the tank bund, resulting in a complaint being filed by each party against the other. In short he believed the witnesses cited by the defendant and held the complaint was not made without any reasonable or probable cause, and dismissed the suits The appellate Court came to the same conclusion and held that on the evidence adduced and the probabilities of the case, the defendants’ version is highly probable and that there can be no doubt that he had reasonable and probable cause for filing the criminal case against the plaintiffs’ appellants, and dismissed the appeals

In second appeal it is contended by Mr. Sambasiva Rao that in case where there are eye-witnesses who have been disbelieved by the. Criminal Court and thereby resulting in acquittal, it is not open to civil court to go behind that acquittal and believe the eye-witnesses and find that there was a reasonable and probable cause for filing the complaint. The learned advocate has not been able to cite any authority in support of the proposition contended for by him. On the other hand, there is clear authority to the contrary. In Pedda Venkatapati v. Balappa1 Curgenven, J., says:

“It lies upon the Civil Court itself to undertake an entirely independent enquiry befo