The cause of action for damages on account of defamation/malicious prosecution is personal to the deceased plaintiff and does not survive to the legal representatives upon his death.

ALKA SARIN, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and remanding the case back for being decided afresh in accordance with law.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1 lakh as compensation for malicious prosecution/harassment/defamation. It is the pleaded case of the plaintiff-appellant that he was elected as Sarpanch of Village Munerheri, Tehsil and District Ambala and he was highly respected in the village and enjoyed a very good reputation. The defendant-respondents are Scheduled Castes and residents of Village Munerheri. They are father and son and they colluded with each other and in 1992 filed a false/frivolous complaint under Sections 452, 436, 437, 427, 148, 149 IPC against the plaintiff-appellant and others without reasonable and probable cause. It was alleged in the said complaint that at about 8.30 PM on 29.01.1992 they were celebrating the birthday of their grandson Sunny and all the 18 accused in the said complaint trespassed into their house and the plaintiff-appellant sprinkled kerosene and set their house on fire. All 18 persons accused in the complaint were stated to be armed with deadly weapons and demolished and looted their house. During the pendency of the complaint, defendant-respondent No.1 is stated to have made a statement on 17.08.2000 withdrawing the complaint against 11 accused. During the pendency of the complaint, the plaintiff-appellant and six others remained in jail for about five months. They had to contest the complaint before this Court as well as before the Supreme Court for grant of bail. During the trial, the plaintiff-appellant had engaged the services of several lawyers for contesting the false complaint. Eventually, the plaintiff-appellant was acquitted vide judgment dated 10.12.2003 and due to the said act and conduct of the defendant-respondents, the plaintiff-appellant suffered loss of reputation. The suit was contested by defendant-respondent Nos.1 and 3 who filed separate written statements and pleaded that the appeal filed against the judgment of acquittal was pending before this Court and, therefore, the suit was premature. Besides contesting the suit on merits, the allegations in the complaint were reiterated in the written statements. Replications were filed controverting the contents of the written statements and reiterating those of the plaint.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file and maintain the present suit ? OPD

4. (sic) Whether the suit is immature ? OPD

5. Whether plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct ? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts ? OPD

7. Relief.

4. The Trial Court decreed the suit vide it’s judgment and decree dated 30.11.2009 and held the plaintiff-appellant entitled to recover Rs.1 lakh as compensation for malicious prosecution/defamation. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred by defendant No.1. The First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 21.11.2003 held as under :

“19. For the reasoning given and discussion made in the preceding portion, the impugned judgment and decree cannot be legally sustained. The same are accordingly set aside. In turn, the matter in question is remanded to the Successor Court of the Ld. Civil Judge for decision of the suit in question afresh as per law. While proceeding afresh, the said Court shall be at liberty to frame appropriate issue, if the need be. The parties through their respective counsel are directed to be present before the said Successor Court on 03.12.2013. The appeal in question is allowed and disposed-off in the above stated terms. Memo of costs be prepared.