- (1.) Defendant no.4/appellant is in second appeal against judgment and decree dated 09.06.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur whereby appeal filed by the plaintiff/respondent no.1 Raunak Ram was decreed while awarding Rs.1 lac as compensation against defendant no.4/appellant and the findings of the learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Sangrur vide its judgment and decree dated 04.06.2008 were reversed.
(2.) Brief facts for proper adjudication of the case in hand are that the plaintiff alleges himself to have been appointed as manager of the Sangrur District Wholesale Cooperative Supply Marketing Society Limited at its Bhawanigarh branch in the year 1968 and filed the present suit by stating that his services were illegally terminated. On representation made by the plaintiff, his matter was ultimately referred for adjudication to an arbitrator and the Arbitrator Tribunal decided the matter in his favour.
(3.) Obeying the decision of the arbitrator, managing committee of the society decided to reinstate the plaintiff and to pay him all the back benefits of the service. It was further alleged that the resolution qua this effect was adopted on 24.12.1992 and thereafter the plaintiff joined the service on 26.12.1992. However, the defendants in connivance with the officials of the cooperative society, in order to give benefit to one Hardeep Singh son of Jagroop Singh tampered with the proceedings of the society and then manipulated to withheld records of the society and finally on 23.2.1993, V.K. Bansal passed a wrong order so as to cancel the resolution dated 24.12.1992 adopted by the managing committee of the society. It was alleged further that defendant nos.5 to 7, in order to deprive the plaintiff of the services as manager of the society got a false FIR registered against the plaintiff and after a long trial the plaintiff was acquitted of the charges by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur vide his judgment dated 2.12.2002. Thus the plaintiff has filed the present suit by stating that he was maliciously prosecuted and due to this prosecution he had to suffer great trauma and hence he had sought compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs for malicious prosecution and monetary loss and expenses incurred by him on defending the false criminal case.;