2012 (1) TMI 382 - HC - Indian Laws

Court sets aside order for plaintiff's handwriting expert in malicious prosecution case. Plaintiff denied rebuttal evidence burden.

The court set aside the order allowing the plaintiff to examine a handwriting expert in rebuttal evidence in a case concerning recovery for alleged ... Burden of proof in malicious prosecution suit - absence of reasonable and probable cause - rebuttal evidence - limitation where initial burden lies on party - mere acquittal not conclusive proof of malicious prosecutionBurden of proof in malicious prosecution suit - absence of reasonable and probable cause - Whether mere acquittal in a criminal trial entitles the accused to a presumption of malicious prosecution in a subsequent civil suit and shifts the onus on the defendant - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the onus to prove that criminal proceedings were initiated without reasonable and probable cause rests on the plaintiff in a suit for malicious prosecution. While acquittal in the earlier criminal proceedings may sometimes give rise to a rebuttable presumption that there was no reasonable and probable cause, that presumption is not conclusive. The civil court must undertake an independent inquiry and the plaintiff must establish absence of reasonable and probable cause and malice; mere acquittal does not automatically establish these elements. [Paras 9, 11, 12, 13, 14]Acquittal alone does not establish malicious prosecution; the plaintiff bears and must discharge the burden of proving absence of reasonable and probable cause and malice.Rebuttal evidence - limitation where initial burden lies on party - Whether the plaintiff could be permitted to lead handwriting expert evidence in rebuttal after the defendant had led evidence on an issue where the initial burden was on the plaintiff - HELD THAT: - Relying on authoritative precedents, the Court held that Order 18 Rule 3 CPC does not entitle a party to lead evidence in rebuttal on issues where the initial burden of proof lies on that party. The option to reserve evidence for rebuttal must be exercised at the time the party closes its evidence or at least before the other party begins evidence; it cannot be invoked after the defendant has led evidence to discharge an initial burden. Since issue No.1 (malicious prosecution) carried the initial burden on the plaintiff and the plaintiff had not discharged that burden before the defendant adduced evidence, the learned trial court erred in permitting the plaintiff to produce a handwriting expert in rebuttal at that stage. [Paras 15, 16, 17]Permission to lead the handwriting expert in rebuttal was not permissible; the trial court's order allowing such rebuttal evidence was wrongly granted and is set aside.Final Conclusion: The petition is allowed; the impugned order permitting the plaintiff to examine a handwriting expert in rebuttal is set aside because the plaintiff bore the initial burden on the issue of malicious prosecution and acquittal alone did not relieve him of proving absence of reasonable and probable cause. Issues Involved:1. Permission to examine handwriting expert in rebuttal evidence.2. Entitlement to recovery for malicious prosecution.3. Burden of proof in malicious prosecution cases.4. Rights of parties to lead evidence in rebuttal.Summary:1. Permission to Examine Handwriting Expert in Rebuttal Evidence:The defendant challenged the order dated 9.8.2011, which allowed the plaintiff to examine a handwriting expert in rebuttal evidence. The plaintiff's evidence was closed on 6.4.2010, and the defendant had led his evidence thereafter. The plaintiff then sought to examine a handwriting expert to compare signatures on an alleged agreement to sell. The court held that the plaintiff could not be allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal as the onus to prove entitlement to recover Rs. 5,00,000/- for alleged malicious prosecution was on the plaintiff initially. The court cited precedents including Surjit Singh vs Jagtar Singh, Ram Rattan vs Anand Pandit, and Mohinder Singh vs Balbir Singh to support this view.2. Entitlement to Recovery for Malicious Prosecution:The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,00,000/- for alleged malicious prosecution by the defendant in FIR No. 118 dated 24.9.1994. The plaintiff was acquitted in the criminal case, which formed the basis for claiming compensation. The court noted that mere acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle one to compensation for malicious prosecution. The plaintiff must prove that the proceedings were initiated without reasonable or probable cause. The court referred to Major Gian Singh vs S. P. Batra and other cases to emphasize that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff.3. Burden of Proof in Malicious Prosecution Cases:The court reiterated that in malicious prosecution cases, the burden of proving that the proceedings were initiated without reasonable and probable cause lies on the plaintiff. The court cited Major Gian Singh's case and other judgments, including Sukhwinder Singh vs Ravinder Singh and Pawan Kumar vs Hans Raj, to underline that the plaintiff must establish both malice and lack of reasonable cause.4. Rights of Parties to Lead Evidence in Rebuttal:The court discussed the rights of parties to lead evidence in rebuttal, stating that a party cannot lead rebuttal evidence on issues where the initial burden of proof is on that party. The court referred to Surjit Singh's case and other judgments like Ram Rattan vs Anand Pandit and Mohinder Singh vs Balbir Singh to support this position. The court concluded that the plaintiff's request to lead rebuttal evidence was not permissible as the burden of proof was on the plaintiff from the beginning.Conclusion:The court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order that permitted the plaintiff to examine the handwriting expert in rebuttal evidence. The court emphasized that the plaintiff must prove the malicious prosecution claim independently and cannot rely on rebuttal evidence to discharge the initial burden of proof.