A.D. Koshal, J. - (1.) REGULAR Second Appeals Nos. 573 and 596 of 1959, which I am hereby disposing of, have arisen in the following circumstances.
(2.) PRITAM Singh and his father Raju Singh, the two Defendants, made an application, dated 19th May, 1954 (Exhibit P.W. 15/A.1) to the Court of the executive Magistrate, 1st Class, Patiala, praying that action under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be taken against the three Plaintiffs. It was alleged in the application that the houses of the parties were situated in Patiala City, opposite each other, that the Plaintiffs parked their bus in front of the door of the house of the Defendants on the 18th May, 1954, at 5.30 p.m., that on an objection raised by the Defendants, the Plaintiffs used filthy language against them and threatened them with death and that the Plaintiffs hold a gun licence. The Defendants also averred that in these circumstances there was a danger of the breach of the peace at the hands of the Plaintiffs. The Executive Magistrate initiated proceedings in pursuance of the application and directed the Plaintiffs to furnish security during the pendency thereof. Jagdev Singh and his son Harbhag Singh, Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, furnished the security demanded of them but Resham Singh, Plaintiff No. 3, could not do so and was detained in the judicial lock -up wherein he remained confined for a period of about two months. Ultimately, however, the Plaintiffs were discharged by the Executive Magistrate on the 28th March, 1955, the case against them having been found to be false. The Defendants, however, reagitated the matter in revision but were unsuccessful, the order of the Executive Magistrate having been confirmed by the District Magistrate, Patiala, on 9th August 1955 (Exhibit P.W. 13/D). On 9th August, 1956, the Plaintiffs filed the suit, out of which these two appeals have arisen, in the court of Shri Gurcharan Singh, Subordinate Judge, Und Class, Patiala, claiming Rs. 1,200 on account of damages for malicious prosecution from the Defendants It was pleaded in the plaint that application Exhibit P.W. 15/A.1 had been made by the Defendants without reasonable and probable cause and out of malice which had resulted from the fact that the Defendants had been bound down earlier to keep the peace at the instance of the Plaintiffs. The damages claimed were split up as follows: A. In respect of Resham Singh Plaintiff - - (a) On account of attendance in court at about 25 hearings in connection with the proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Rs. 275.00 (b) For detention in the judicial lockup over a period of about 2 months during the pendency of the said proceedings and on account of his consequent removal from service as a cleaner against a salary of Rs. 80 per mensem Rs. 275.00 B. In respect of Jagdev Singh Plaintiff - - (a) For attending the court of the Executive Magistrate on all the hearings Rs. 175.00 (b) For loss incurred on account of his inability to take his bus to Delhi in connection with the marriage ceremony of the son of Dewan Hari Kishan, Advocate of Patiala Rs. 175.00 C. In respect of Harbhag Singh, Plaintiff - - On account of failure in the 9th class examination by reason of attendance at court hearing Rs. 300.00
(3.) THE Defendants contested the suit and admitted having made application, Exhibit P.W. 15/A.1 as also the fact that the Plaintiffs were discharged in the proceedings held in pursuance thereof. It was pleaded, however, that the suit was barred by limitation, that application, Exhibit P.W. 15/A.1 had been made bona fide and that the Plaintiffs had not suffered any injury.;