The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that the availability of a specific remedy of appeal as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, renders a Civil Revision Petition not maintainable.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 04.07.2008 passed in A.S.No.17 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul as reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2004 passed in O.S.No.37 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nilakkottai.)

1.This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge''s Court at Dindigul in A.S.No.17 of 2005 by reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2004 passed in O.S.No.37 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Nilakkottai.

2. The original suit in O.S.No.37 of 2004 was one for damages for an amount of Rs.31,000/- seeking to compensate the unforeseen difficulties and loss of income faced by the plaintiffs as a result of the false complaint lodged by the defendant as against the plaintiffs. The learned Trial Court framed three issues and the learned Trial Court was pleased to adjudicate the case on merits, decided all the three issues in favour of the plaintiffs and passed a decree directing the defendants to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiffs. The said suit was valued at Rs.31,000/- and a Court fee for the same was also been paid by the plaintiffs. Assailing the said judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court in O.S.No.37 of 2004, an appeal was preferred by the defendant in A.S.No.17 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge''s Court at Dindigul.

3. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge''s Court at Dindigul allowed the said appeal on 04.07.2008, thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Munsif Court at Nilakkottai, thereby dismissing O.S.No.37 of 2004 with a cost of Rs.520/-. As against the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court in A.S.No.17 of 2005 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge''s at Dindigul, the petitioners / respondents / plaintiffs have preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard Mr.S.Ramasamy, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.R.J.Karthick, the learned Counsel for the respondent at length. The learned Counsel for the petitioners elaborated the various aspects of malicious prosecution and the need to uphold the trial Court judgment.

5. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent sought dismissal of the Trial Court judgment and to uphold the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court.

6. Precisely before going elaborately into the merits of the case, this Court is seized of the provision under Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is extracted as follows:

“102. No second appeal in certain cases.-

No second appeal shall lie from any decree, when the subject matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees.”

7. The suit valuation in O.S.No.37 of 2004 was Rs.31,000/-. In view of the mandate in Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in any original suit when the subject matter is for recovery of money exceeding an amount of Rs.25,000/-, the remedy would be by way of a second appeal. This Court is ridiculed by the way as to how this Civil Revision Petition is maintainable in a original suit filed seeking damages to a tune of Rs.31,000/-, in which Court fee for the said amount has also been paid. Hence, the maintainability of this Civil Revision Petition itself has to be looked into.

8. On perusal of the available records, it is found that the memo of valuation clearly mentioning the value of suit as Rs.31,000/- has been filed along with the Civil Revision Petition. It is also seen that this Civil Revision Petition was filed on 09.02.2009. However, it is found that on 10.02.2009, the entire file was returned by the Registry / AE seeking clarification as to how this Civil Revision Petition is maintainable. The learned Counsel for the petitioners / respondents / pl