JUDGMENT :

G.R. Swaminathan, J.

1. The defendants in O.S. No. 172 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli are the appellants herein. The respondent herein, namely, Abdul Kareem filed the said suit seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the appellants for having maliciously prosecuted him. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide Judgment and decree dated 13.07.2010. Challenging the same, the respondent herein filed A.S. No. 114 of 2011. The first Appellate Court by the impugned Judgment and Decree allowed the appeal. Questioning the same, this second appeal was filed. It was admitted on 21.02.2013 on the following substantial questions of law:

"1. Whether the First Appellate Court has erroneously altered the judgment and decree of the trial Court and partly allowed the claim of the plaintiff without considering the non-jointer of necessary parties i.e., also marked in Ex. A5 is a valid one? 2. Whether the First Appellate Court is ignoring the five elements required to prove for the suit for malicious prosecution is correct, when it leads to self-contrary in nature?

3. Whether the first Appellate Court fails to consider the 161 statement in Cr.P.C., when negligence is existed on the part of the Investigation Officer is proper?"

It is obvious that the aforesaid formulation conveys no meaning. It does not make any sense at all. The reason is obvious. Though Section 100 (4) of CPC states that where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question, what mostly happens in practice is not in strict consonance with the statutory mandate. Since Section 100(3) of CPC states that the appeal memorandum shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal, once the Judge is satisfied that a case has been made out for admitting the second appeal, instead of independently formulating the substantial question of law arising in the appeal, instruction is given to the stenographer to copy down certain particular grounds from the appeal memorandum. If the counsel's formulation is flawed and defective, the Court record also carries the same vice. Though it is somewhat embarrassing, I have chosen to be frank more with an eye on future. Since the judicial workload is staggering, it is not fair to expect the judges to expend too much time and energy in proof-reading. The counsel must assume greater responsibility. They must deeply study the case record. Their grasp of the legal principles must be thorough and accurate. The distilled understanding must be reflected in the appeal grounds. They must be properly drafted. There should not be grammatical and spelling errors. The role of stenographers and typists is equally significant. Only if all the stakeholders discharge their commitments sincerely, howlers like what we saw now can be avoided.

2. In the place of what was formulated earlier, the following substantial questions of law were framed:

"1. Whether the first Appellate Court ought to have seen that there was no cause of action against the defendants 2 to 6 as they figured only as witnesses in the criminal case?

2. Whether the first Appellate Court failed to note that the necessary ingredients for proving the claim of malicious prosecution are not present in this case?

3. Whether the first Appellate Court ought to have seen that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof cast on him?."

The learned counsel on either side addressed the court on the aforesaid substantial questions of law.

3. The plaintiff was a permanent resident of Pettavaithalai Village. He was employed in TWAD Board. He questioned the manner in which the local mosque was being administered. The president of the Jamath which managed the mosque was the brother-in-law of the first defendant M. Abubacker. The first defendant implicated the plaintiff and his son in Crime No. 399 of 2000 under Sections 452 and 506(2) of IPC on the file o