MALIL WASIL Versus MUMTAZ-UR-REHMAN

ORDER

IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.--- This revision petition is directed against the concurrent findings of the two Courts below i.e. learned Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge, Peshawar, whereby the former rejected suit of the plaintiff-petitioner under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. and the latter affirmed the same by dismissing the appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case are, that the plaintiff-petitioner instituted a suit against the defendants-respondents for recovery of Rs.10,00,000 as damages, in consequence of filing written statement in another suit, wherein according to the plaintiff-petitioner certain unnecessary and baseless allegations were alleged against him. The suit was contested by defendants-respondents. On 17-6-2002, defendants-respondents moved an application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C., for rejection of the suit. The application having been resisted, was accepted and the plaint was rejected and appeal filed thereagainst also met the same fate. Hence instant revision petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents on pre-admission notice in the light of the material on file.

3-A. The record reveals that the petitioner had instituted instant suit against the respondents for damages on the ground that in another suit, in written statement, the respondents had levelled certain baseless and frivolous allegations against the petitioner, due to which reputation of the petitioner was badly affected. The said written statement indicates that no such allegations exist, which can affect the reputation of the petitioner. Again no suit for recovery of damages is generally maintainable for malicious institution of civil suit, one of the reasons being that on defeat of a civil suit the law provides for compensation to successful party by awarding costs/special costs to him. In Haji Muhammad Shafi v. Mst. Hamidan Bibi 1990 MLD 597 (Lahore), it was observed:--

"No separate suit can be filed for recovery of costs incurred or damages suffered on account of institution, or defence of a previous civil suit. Under section 35 of the C.P.C. the Court while deciding a suit is empowered to grant cost to the affected party. Similarly section 35-A of the C.P.C. provides Panacea for the loss suffered by a person in case the action brought against him is found to be frivolous, vexatious and mala fide. In these circumstances it cannot be contended with any success that a separate suit can be filed notwithstanding that while deciding the earlier suit, the Court had declined to grant any cost or had granted costs which are considered to be inadequate."

Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, I see no good ground to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the two Courts below. Resultantly, this revision petition being devoid of force is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

H.B.T./116/P Revision dismissed.