JUDGMENT

Braund, J. - This second appeal marks, I hope, the close of a sequence of unedifying litigation which reflects no credit on any of the parties engaged in it. The suit itself, No. 436 of 1939, was filed in the Court of the Munsif of Nagina for damages for malicious prosecution, the alleged prosecution being an application made in 1939 by the present appellant-defendant and his co-defendant to the suit moving the High Court to institute contempt proceedings against the two present plaintiff-respondents. It will be necessary in the first place to relate the circumstances in which this unfortunate application in the High Court came to be made. The matter began with a suit - not the present suit-started in January 1939 by the present plaintiff, Ram Sarup, against the present defendant 2, Baldeo Sahai, con, concerning a small matter of trespass. Ram Sarup is a Professor of Sanskrit in the Aligarh University and he lives at Aligarh but happens to possess the house in respect of which the 1939 suit was brought at a place called Sahore, which is in the jurisdiction of the Munsif of Nagina. That is how Eani Sarup came to bring a suit in that Courts Ram Sarup, moreover, has a son, Sheo Duttt Sharma, who is plaintiff 2 in the present proceedings. This gentleman is an agent of the Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Limited of Calcutta and carries on his activities at Nagina. As a matter of convenience, therefore, Professor Ram Sarup made use of his son as his pairokar or agent for the purpose of handling his litigation in Nagina. In those circumstances a plaint was duly filed by Earn Sarup. In March 1939 the written statement in this suit was put in on be half of the defendant Baldeo Sahai. Now Baldeo Sahai had engaged a gentleman named B. Sumat Prasad Jain, who is defendant 1 to the suit with which we are now concerned and the appellant before us at this moment, as his advocate for the purpose of defending Earn Sarup's suit. On 27th March 1989, we find the written statement from which the whole of the trouble started. In para. 2 of the "special pleas" there is the following statement:

2. That the plaintiff has no cause of action for the present suit. All the allegations as to the arising of the cause of action are wrong and the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. The present suit has been filed at the instigation of Bhagwan Das, brother of the plaintiff, and an opponent of the defendants, in collusion with Sheo Dutt, an 'award' son of the plaintiff in order to harm the defendants.

I should explain that it is common ground in this case that the word "awara" is an Urdu word bearing a highly offensive meaning indicative of a 'vagabond.' On the same day, immediately on receipt of this written statement, an application on behalf of the plaintiff, Earn Sarup, was made to the Munsif in some such terms as these - that the defendant Baldeo Sahai should be ordered to withdraw the offensive word "awara" and to apologise to the plaintiff's son for ever having used it. This application was dealt with, I venture to think somewhat inexpertly by the learned Munsif who seems to have accepted a compromise since we find that on 5fch April 1939, after some discussion, he permitted an amendment to be made by substituting the word "awaragard" for the word "awara." It seems that the word "awaragard" means an 'aimless wanderer' and is slightly, but only slightly, less offensive than the word "awara." If I may say so, it would have been better if the application of 27fch March 1939 had been dealt with strictly in accordance with 0rder 6, Rule 16, Civil P.C., and if the offensive passage - if indeed -, not the whole of the paragraph had been ordered to be struck out as unnecessary and scandalous. At the very best it was an idle and irrelevant piece of pleading and one which should have found no place in any written statement professionally drawn. I do not blame the Munsif; but a more experienced Judge would probably have taken that course