TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (1) TMI 382
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot be permitted at this stage. The plaintiff could not be allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal considering the fact that the onus of the issue as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 5,00,000/- for his alleged malicious prosecution by the petitioner, was on him. He was required to discharge the burden at the initial stage and not after the defendant had led his evidence. In support of his argument, he referred to judgments of this court in Surjit Singh and others vs Jagtar Singh and others 2007 (1) PLR 552, Ram Rattan vs Anand Pandit and others 2009 (5) R. C. R. (Civil) 696, and Mohinder Singh vs Balbir Singh and others 2011 (2) PLR 390. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that acquittal in a criminal case is not enough to claim compensation for malicious prosecution. Before the civil court the party is required to establish its case beyond doubt that there was malicious prosecution. In support of his submission, he referred to Major Gian Singh vs S. P. Batra AIR 1973 Punjab and Haryana 400, Muthuswamy vs Siddhan and others 2005 (3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 79, Sugan Kanwar vs Rakesh 2007 (1) R. C. R. (Criminal) 349, Gulabchand Motilal Rathi vs Nationa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed and ultimately acquitted in FIR No. 118 dated 24.9.1994 got registered by the petitioner. It is the primary basis for claiming compensation. 7. On pleadings of the parties, the learned court below framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs. 5,00,000/- for malicious prosecution ? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is false and frivolous? OPD 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? OPD 5. Relief." 8. The onus of the main issue, namely, as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of his malicious prosecution is on the plaintiff. 9. As to whether mere acquittal of an accused in a criminal case is sufficient to presume that he has been maliciously prosecuted, hence entitled to compensation on account thereof, has been gone into by a Division Bench of this Court in Major Gian Singh's case (supra), wherein it was opined that acquittal of the plaintiff in earlier proceedings may some times give rise to a presumption that there was no reasonabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Therefore, the burden of proof as regards aforesaid essentials always rests upon the plaintiff and it never shifts throughout trial. xx xx xx 14. First of all, the burden of proving absence of reasonable and probable cause is on the plaintiff and thus it is the plaintiff who has to undertake task of proving a negative. xx xx xx 15. Reasonable and probable cause means a genuine belief, based on reasonable grounds, that the proceedings are justified. xx xx xx 16. As regards grounds for belief, even if the defendant honestly believed the proceedings to be justified, there is no reasonable an probable cause unless this belief was based on reasonable grounds and it can be determined by the facts actually known to the defendants at the time when he laid the information and subsequently proceeded with the prosecution, and not to the facts as they factually existed.... xx xx xx 28... To lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R, lodged this false case. 14. The similar view is expressed by Bombay High Court in Gulabchand Motilal Rathi's case (supra), Kerala High Court in Bhaskara Menon's case (supra) and Rajasthan High Court in Ram Lal's case (supra). 15. Now coming to the issue of rights of the parties for leading evidence in rebuttal. A Division Bench of this court in Surjit Singh's case (supra), opined that a party cannot be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal on the issues, the initial burden of proof whereof is on that party. The relevant extract thereof is as under:- "15. In our opinion, Order 18 Rule 3 of the CPC would not give a right to the plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal on issues in which the onus of proof is on the plaintiff. Accepting such an interpretation would be to ignore a vital part of Order 18 Rule 3 of the CPC. The rule clearly postulates that "the party beginning, may, at his option, either produce his evidence on these issues or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other parties." No matter, how liberally a provision in the statute is required to be interpreted, by interpretation it cannot be amended. Whilst construing....