Bhandari, J.

1. The short point for decision in the present case is whether the Court below was justified in dismissing the plaintiffs suit for damages for malicious prosecution on the ground that the prosecution was not inspired by malice and was not destitute of any reasonable or probable cause.

2. The parties to the litigation out of which this appeal has arisen are owners of two contiguous properties which were separated by a wall belonging to the defendant. On 19-9-1946 the defendant sent a registered notice to the plaintiff in which he complained that the plaintiff was endangering the safety of his wall by piling up bricks and other building materials against the wall and warned him that if his property sustained damage by reason of any act done by him, his agents or his labourers, the plaintiff would be held responsible for any loss that may be caused.

3. The plaintiff paid no heed to this notice and at 10 Oclock on the night of 4-10-1946 the wall came down all of a sudden causing a certain amount of damage to a printing press which a tenant of the defendant had set up near the wall. The defendant reported the matter to the Police on the following day and filed a reg