Respondent's right to challenge adverse findings without cross-objection upheld, while malicious prosecution claim failed for lack of proof.

Order XLI Rule 22 CPC permits a respondent, without filing a cross-objection, to challenge an adverse finding in order to support the decree in its favour; the amendment was treated as clarificatory and not as making a cross-objection mandatory. The Court also held that a finding of illegality alone does not establish malicious prosecution or absence of reasonable and probable cause where officers acted on official instructions and the alleged facts were not proved. On the evidence, the High Court's finding of malice was unsustainable, so the claim for non-pecuniary damages failed, while the decree for pecuniary damages remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a respondent in appeal may, without filing a cross-objection, challenge an adverse finding on malice and absence of reasonable and probable cause in order to support the dismissal of the suit for non-pecuniary damages. (ii) Whether the finding of the High Court that the prosecution was malicious and without reasonable and probable cause was sustainable on the evidence.

Issue (i): Whether a respondent in appeal may, without filing a cross-objection, challenge an adverse finding on malice and absence of reasonable and probable cause in order to support the dismissal of the suit for non-pecuniary damages.

Analysis: Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended in 1976, preserves the respondent's right to support the decree on any ground decided against him in the court below. The amendment clarified rather than altered the settled position that a cross-objection is optional and not mandatory when the respondent merely assails an adverse finding to sustain the decree in his favour on another part of the case. A respondent may, therefore, attack an adverse finding even without a cross-objection when that finding underlies a decree partly against him and he seeks to uphold the remaining part of the decree.

Conclusion: The respondents were entitled, without filing a cross-objection, to challenge the adverse findings and support the dismissal of the claim for non-pecuniary damages.

Issue (ii): Whether the finding of the High Court that the prosecution was malicious and without reasonable or probable cause was sustainable on the evidence.

Analysis: The existence of a Gazette notification rescinding the control order did not by itself establish want of reasonable and probable cause, because the State Government had contemporaneously instructed its officers to continue enforcement of the order pending further instructions. Newspaper reports could not constitute proof of the facts asserted therein, and the officers acted on official instructions. On the evidence, the assertions of disclosure of the notification, production of permits, and demand for a bag of rice were not satisfactorily proved. Illegality alone did not establish absence of reasonable and probable cause, and the record did not justify the High Court's conclusion of malice.

Conclusion: The finding of malice and absence of reasonable and probable cause was not sustainable against the respondents.

Final Conclusion: The claim for non-pecuniary damages failed, while the decree already granted for pecuniary damages remained undisturbed; the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a respondent may, without cross-objection, attack an adverse finding to sustain the decree in his favour, and a finding of illegality does not by itself establish malicious prosecution or absence of reasonable and probable cause where the accused acted on official instructions and the relevant facts are not proved.

---