Malicious prosecution claims require independent proof; rebuttal evidence cannot be used to fill a plaintiff's primary burden.

In a malicious prosecution claim, the plaintiff must independently prove absence of reasonable and probable cause and the other foundational facts; acquittal in the criminal case is not enough by itself. Where the burden on the main issue lies on the plaintiff, evidence supporting that case must ordinarily be led in the plaintiff's own evidence. Order 18 Rule 3 CPC does not permit reserving such evidence for rebuttal merely because the party wishes to strengthen its primary case later. A handwriting expert intended to support the plaintiff's claim on the principal issue could not therefore be introduced in rebuttal, and permission to do so was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff, who bore the burden of proving a claim for damages for malicious prosecution, could be permitted to lead handwriting expert evidence in rebuttal after closing his evidence and after the defendant had led his evidence.

Analysis: The suit was for damages on the footing of malicious prosecution, and the onus on the main issue rested on the plaintiff. In a claim of this nature, acquittal in the criminal case does not by itself establish malicious prosecution; the plaintiff must independently prove the absence of reasonable and probable cause and the other foundational facts. Evidence necessary to discharge that burden had to be adduced when the plaintiff first led his evidence. Order 18 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not confer a right to reserve such evidence in rebuttal on an issue whose burden lies on the party seeking to lead it. Since the handwriting expert was intended to support the plaintiff's own case on the principal issue, permission to examine the expert in rebuttal was not legally justified.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to lead the handwriting expert in rebuttal, and the order allowing such evidence was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the order succeeded and the permission granted by the court below was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A party cannot lead evidence in rebuttal on an issue the burden of proof for which lies on that party, and a claim for malicious prosecution must be independently proved on its own merits, not inferred merely from acquittal in the criminal case.

---