2024:BHC-NAG:13255 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

SECOND APPEAL NO.308 OF 2006 WITH CROSS OBJECTION NO.58 OF 2023 SECOND APPEAL NO.308 OF 2006

1. State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Chandrapur, tahsil and district Chandrapur.

2. B.R.Pachpor, Deputy Conservator of Forest, Working Plan Division, Melghat, Amravati, district Amravati.

3. The Divisional Forest Officer, (Deputy Conservator of Forest] Chandrapur Forest Division, tahsil and district Chandrapur. ….. Appellants.

:: V E R S U S ::

Deepak s/o Nilkanthrao Buradkar, aged about 47 years, occupation : business, resident of Balaji Ward, Chandrapur, tahsil and district Chandrapur. ….. Respondent.

=================================

Shri K.R.Lule, Assistant Government Pleader for Appellants/State.

Shri Amol Mardikar, Counsel for the Respondent.

=================================

CROSS OBJECTION NO.58 OF 2023

1. State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Chandrapur, tahsil and district - Chandrapur.

2. B.R.Pachpor, Deputy Conservator of Forest, Working Plan Division, Melghat, Amravati, district -

Amravati.

3. The Divisional Forest Officer, (Deputy Conservator of Forest], Chandrapur Forest Division, tahsil and district Chandrapur. ….. Appellants.

:: V E R S U S ::

Deepak son of Nilkanthrao Buradkar, aged about 47 years, occupation - business, resident of Balaji Ward, Chandrapur, tahsil and district Chandrapur. ….. Cross-Objector.

=================================

Shri K.R.Lule, Assistant Government Pleader for Appellants/State.

Shri Amol Mardikar, Counsel for the Cross-Objector.

=================================

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.

CLOSED ON : 26/11/2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 05/12/2024 COMMON JUDGMENT

1. By preferring this appeal, the State has challenged judgment and decree dated 24.11.2005 passed by learned 2nd Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Chandrapur in Regular Civil Appeal No.167/2002.

2. The appeal was admitted on following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether a Civil Court could order payment of price of confiscated logs after the order of confiscation by the Competent Authority attained finality by not being challenged before the Sessions Judge?

2. Whether limitation for the suit for claiming return of property, which is subject-matter of criminal case, would start from the alleged wrongful seizure or from the date of judgment in criminal case?

3. The substantial questions on law were framed on 31.10.2007 prior to filing of the cross objection. By filing the cross objection finding that respondent/cross objector is not entitled for damages towards malicious prosecution is challenged. After hearing learned counsel Shri Amol Mardikar for the respondent/cross objector on cross objection, the following substantial question of law is additionally framed:

Whether the Trial and First Appellate Courts committed an error in rejecting relief of damages claimed by the cross objector for malicious prosecution?

4. The parties hereinafter are referred as per their original nomenclatures.

5. Brief facts giving rise to filing of the suit are as follows: 6. The plaintiff, who is respondent and cross-objector in this appeal, filed a suit for recovery of amount Rs.41,351/-. As per contention of the plaintiff, he is a businessman dealing in “Timbers” (forest produce). Defendant No.2, who is a Range Forest Officer, held an auction of Timber Logs in Agarzari Depot in Moharli Forest Range, Chandrapur Forest Division on 2.7.1985. The defendant No.2 was physically present at Agarzari Depot who conducted the said auction. The plaintiff was successful bidder for the teak wood log Nos.130, 131, 141, 146, and 156. Accordingly, the plaintiff has deposited the price money as well as Sales Tax and Forest Development Tax with the defendant on 30.9.1985. Defendant No.3, the Divisional Forest Officer, had given a delivery order to the plaintiff.

7. The plaintiff had purchased lot No.141 of Teak Timber for a consideration of Rs.5000/- and paid the entire consideration amount along with tax