Summary: The respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 53,924,500 as damages for malicious prosecution, alleging that the appellant had initiated baseless legal proceedings against him. The respondent claimed that these legal actions, including appeals and revisions against his land allotment under the Lambardari scheme, were made with malice, causing mental and financial distress. The trial court partially decreed the suit, awarding Rs. 100,000 to the respondent. The appellant appealed the decision. ------ Issues: ------ 1) Whether the appellant's actions constituted malicious prosecution. ------ 2) Whether the respondent was entitled to damages based on the claim of malicious prosecution. ------ 3) Whether the trial court’s partial decree in favor of the respondent was justified. ------ Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Lahore High Court set aside the trial court’s partial decree in favor of the respondent, ruling that the appellant’s actions were not malicious and were based on probable cause. The court held that: The appellant had acted without malice when challenging the respondent’s land allotment, as the land was reserved for “Charagah” and was not available for allotment under the Lambardari scheme. The respondent failed to prove that the prosecution was initiated with malicious intent or without reasonable and probable cause. The respondent did not provide sufficient evidence of suffering damages, mental torture, or reputational harm as a result of the proceedings. The respondent had dishonestly obtained land under the Lambardari scheme, which was later canceled by the Revenue Department, thus justifying the appellant's actions. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the respondent's suit was dismissed. Both parties were left to bear their own costs. ------ Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Akram vs. Farman Bibi (PLD 1990 Supreme Court 28) Niaz and others vs. Abdul Sattar and others (PLD 2006 Supreme Court 432) Subedar (Retd) Fazle Rahim vs. Rab Nawaz (1999 SCMR 700) Province of West Bengal and others vs. S.M. Faruque and others (PLD 1959 Dacca 268) Abdul Rasheed vs. State Bank of Pakistan (PLD 1970 Karachi 344) Abdul Rauf vs. Abdul Razzak and another (PLD 1994 Supreme Court 476) Manzoor Hussain (deceased) through L.Rs., vs. Misri Khan (PLD 2020 Supreme Court 749) Mst. Akhtar Sultana vs. Major Retd. Muzaffar Khan Malik through his legal heirs and others (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 715) Rustam and others vs. Jehangir (deceased) through L.Rs. (2023 SCMR 730)

Summary: Requirements for Malicious Prosecution ----- (a) Malicious prosecution--- ----Suit for damages---Prosecution of a criminal offence---Plaintiff filed suit for damages on the ground that he was acquitted of the charge in complaint case lodged by the defendant---Suit for damages was decreed concurrently---Validity---Plaintiff had not stated with regard to reputation or mental agony and the damages suffered by him-- -Plaintiff was bound to prove not only the prosecution but also the other ingredients for grant of damages---Acquittal of plaintiff was based on withdrawal of complaint by the defendant on the basis of compromise---Initial burden of proof was on the plaintiff to substantiate his claim (s) by adducing cogent, legal, relevant and unimpeachable evidence of definitiveness---Plaintiff had failed to establish/substantiate/prove his claim of damages---Impugned judgments were without reasoning as required for grant of a decree for compensation for mental/physical torture or disrepute suffered at the hands of complainant---Said judgments and decrees were result of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence which were set aside by High Court. (b) Malicious prosecution--- ----Elements to be taken into consideration---Plaintiff must establish for a decree for malicious prosecution that he/she was prosecuted by the defendant with malice; that prosecution ended in his/her favour; that defendant acted without reasonable and probable cause; that proceedings had interfered with his/her liberty and that same had affected his/her reputation and plaintiff had suffered damage.---- Issues: ----- 1) Whether the respondents proved their case of malicious prosecution against Dilawar Khan to be entitled to damages. ----- 2) Whether the judgments and decrees of the lower courts were based on a misreading of evidence and incorrect application of law. ----- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Requirements for Malicious Prosecution: The court outlined six factors that must be established for a suit for damages based on malicious prosecution: ----- The plaintiff was prosecuted by the defendant. ----- The prosecution ended in the plaintiff’s favor. ----- The defendant acted without reasonable and probable cause. ------ The defendant was motivated by malice. ----- The prosecution affected the plaintiff’s liberty or reputation. ----- The plaintiff suffered damages. ----Failure to Prove Claims: The court noted that the respondents failed to provide sufficient evidence of the damage to their reputation or any mental agony suffered as a result of the prosecution. Although the respondents testified that they suffered reputational harm, their witness (PW-2) did not corroborate this claim. Furthermore, the respondents were acquitted due to the withdrawal of the complaint on the basis of a compromise, which undermined their case for malicious prosecution. ----- Judgment: The court held that the respondents failed to substantiate their claims for damages with the required evidence. The lower courts' judgments were found to be based on a misreading and non-reading of material evidence. Therefore, the impugned judgments and decrees were set aside, and the respondents’ suits were dismissed. ----- Outcome: The civil revision petition was accepted, and the judgments and decrees of the lower courts were overturned. The suits filed by the respondents were dismissed. ----- Citations/Precedents: Sections 506 and 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code

Summary: "(1) There are about 2.2 million cases pending before all courts in the country, (2) Frivolous litigation is required to be rooted out of the system and strongly discouraged and one of the ways to curb such practice of instituting frivolous and vexatious cases is by imposing of costs under Order XXVIII, Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980.'' -----Background: The petitioner filed a suit for partition, possession, and injunction concerning a two-floor house built on a 1 Kanal plot (Plot No. 7-M, Raja Akhtar Road, Korang Valley, Shahpur, Barakahu, Islamabad). The property was owned by the parties' father. The trial court issued a preliminary decree on 13.01.2020 and appointed a local commission. The reserve price set by the trial court was objected to by the petitioner on 16.03.2020. The court appointed an auctioneer, who submitted a report on 18.03.2023, which was also objected to by the petitioner. These objections were dismissed on 12.04.2023, prompting an appeal that was allowed on 08.07.2023. The respondent's revision petition to the Islamabad High Court was allowed on 02.07.2024, leading to the current petition for leave to appeal. ----Issues: 1) Whether the petitioner's objections to the reserve price and auction proceedings were valid. 2) Whether the Islamabad High Court's decision to dismiss the petitioner's objections was justified. 3) Whether the petition constitutes frivolous and vexatious litigation aimed at delaying the matter. ---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Validity of Petitioner's Objections: The Supreme Court reviewed the objections raised by the petitioner against the reserve price and the auction proceedings. The Court found no merit in the objections and upheld the High Court's decision. ----High Court's Decision: The Supreme Court did not find any fault in the High Court's judgment. It concluded that the petitioner's actions were an abuse of the court process, intended to pressurize the other side and delay the lawful auction of the property, thereby depriving her siblings and mother of their rightful share. Frivolous Litigation: The Court emphasized the detrimental impact of frivolous and vexatious litigation on the justice system. Such cases contribute to the backlog of pending cases, which hampers the resolution of genuine disputes. The Court highlighted the need to discourage such litigation through the imposition of costs. ---Citations/Precedents: Qazi Naveed ul Islam v. District Judge, Gujrat, PLD 2023 SC 298 Addressed the issue of frivolous and vexatious litigation and the imposition of costs to discourage such practices. National Highway Authority v. Sambu Construction, 2023 SCMR 1103 Reinforced the principle of imposing costs on frivolous litigations to maintain an efficient and fair justice system. ---Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as frivolous and vexatious, imposing a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the petitioner to be paid to the respondents. The Court underscored the importance of curbing such litigation to ensure expeditious justice and alleviate the burden on the judicial system. A copy of the order was directed to be dispatched to the respondents for information.