Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
ALKA SARIN
Kartar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Bhupinder Kaur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Alka Sarin, J.
The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the concurrent findings returned by both the Courts. The suit of the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 09.01.1997 and his appeal was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 13.08.1998.2. The facts, tersely put, are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs.50,000/- on account of damages against the defendantrespondents averring in the plaint that he was a retired Army personnel and his marriage was solemnized with defendant-respondent No.1-Bhupinder Kaur on 11.11.1985. They had one daughter and one son out of the wedlock. It was further averred that he was serving in the Indian Army at the time of his marriage and retired on 28.02.1994. He and his wife i.e. defendantrespondent No.1 resided and cohabited together in a small room in Topkhana Bazar, Ambala Cantt. In May 1994 the plaintiff-appellant secured a job as a temporary security guard and shifted to village Nagla. It was further averred that defendant-respondent No.1 fell in bad company and started humiliating and harassing the pl
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.
Plaintiffs must demonstrate malicious intent and material damages in malicious prosecution claims, with mere acquittal insufficient for recovery.
In malicious prosecution claims, plaintiffs must prove malice and actual damages; failure to do so results in dismissal of the suit.
The judgment established that the proof of the four elements required for a tort of malicious prosecution cannot be adduced at the stage of an Order VII Rule 11 CPC application, and highlighted the n....
Acquittal in prior proceedings does not imply malicious prosecution; plaintiff must prove damage to reputation or legality of claim, which was lacking in this case.
To establish malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must prove both a lack of reasonable cause and a favorable termination of the proceedings; mere acquittal does not suffice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
