https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287095 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. en-us Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Mar 2020 11:32:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287095 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287095