ORDER SHEET

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT AT LARKANA

Constt: Petition No.S-677 of 2018

Date	Order with signature of Judge

For hearing of main case.

Date of hearing:  06.03.2023

Date of decision: 17.03.2023

Mr. Atta Hussain Chandio, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr.Habibullah G. Ghouri, Advocate for respondent No.1.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

ZULFIQUAR ALI SANGI, J:-    Through instant constitutional petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 11.06.2018, delivered by learned 6^th Additional District Judge, Larkana, in Civil Revision No.36 of 2017, whereby the order dated 28.10.2017, passed by 3^rd Senior Civil Judge, Shikarpur, in F.C.Suit No.41 of 2016 rejecting the plaint, was set aside.

2.       The facts of the case are already mentioned in the memo of petition as well as in the impugned order, hence the same need not to be repeated.

3.       Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and perused the material made available on record with able assistance. The former has prayed for setting aside the order of learned Revisional Court with direction to learned trial Court to adduce the evidence and then to dispose of the suit in accordance with law, while the latter has flatly opposed to it contending that learned Revisional Court after going through the pleadings of parties has rightly allowed the civil revision application of the respondents, which calls for no interference by this Court and the instant constitutional petition filed by the petitioners being meritless is liable to be dismissed with costs.      

4.       It is borne out from the record that the claim of petitioners for recovery of damages and compensation against the respondents is based on submission of challan against them after malicious investigation in FIR bearing Crime No.47/2015, U/S.506/2 PPC lodged at P.S Bakrani by one of the respondents, wherein they after full-fledged trial were acquitted by learned trial Court by extending them benefit of doubt, which arose controversy between the parties and the same being factual could only be cured by adducing the evidence at trial. In that situation, there was no justification for learned Revisional Court to have rejected the plaint of the petitioners Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The guidelines for deciding a suit for malicious prosecution have also been discussed by the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Niaz v. Abdul Sattar (PLD 2006 SC-432) and Muhammad Yousaf v. Abdul Qayyum (PLD 2016 SC-478). Consequently, the instant Constitutional Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order of learned Revisional Court with direction to learned trial Court to adduce the evidence of the parties and then to make disposal of the suit in accordance with law, after hearing all the concerned.

                    JUDGE