2025 (2) TMI 369 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - Suit for recovery of damages/compensation on account of defamation mental pain agony harassment tension and financial loss caused to the appellant/plaintiff due to the filing of false litigation - HELD THAT - In the present case there is no evidence to show that any damage or harassment was caused to the plaintiff. The learned Trial Court has observed that the amount has been granted on account of defamation and mental pain and agony; whereas there is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff was defamed. In fact there was no evidence to show that any damage or harassment had been caused to the plaintiff. It must be remembered that the institution of a legal proceeding by the defendant against the plaintiff maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause is actionable in tort on proof of damage either to his reputation or to his property. In the present case the petitioner/plaintiff has failed to prove any damage either to his reputation or to his property or to his person. The learned first Appellate Court upon detailed appraisal of the evidence and pleadings on record held that the proceedings instituted by the defendant against the plaintiff upon dishonouring of the cheque were not instituted on the basis of some malice. As such the learned first Appellate Court correctly held that there was no malicious prosecution/false and frivolous litigation instituted on the part of the defendant against the plaintiff. Mere acquittal of the plaintiff in criminal case would not imply that there was malicious prosecution by the defendant against the plaintiff. As such no ground was made out for granting the damages. Learned lower appellate Court found that image of the plaintiff was not lowered nor any news regarding filing of complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was ever got published by the defendant. It was in this background that the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed - no ground is made out to interfere in the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2024 passed by the learned First Appellate Court. Conclusion - The court found no merit in the plaintiff s claims of defamation mental pain and financial loss due to false litigation. The lack of evidence supporting these claims led to the dismissal of the suit in the second appeal. The present regular second appeal is hereby dismissed.

Summary

The Punjab & Haryana High Court considered an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of a 16-day delay in filing an appeal. The delay was condoned based on reasons stated in the application supported by an affidavit. The main case involved a plaintiff seeking damages for defamation, mental pain, agony, harassment, tension, and financial loss caused by false litigation filed by the defendant. The trial court partly decreed the suit awarding Rs. 2 lakhs to the plaintiff. However, the first appellate court reversed this decision, dismissing the suit, leading to the second appeal.Issues Presented and Considered:1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 20,00,000 as claimed?2. Whether the suit is maintainable?3. Whether the plaintiff has the standing to file the suit?4. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action and is compliant with CPC provisions?5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit?6. Whether the plaint is drafted correctly?7. Whether the plaintiff has a cause of action?8. Whether the plaintiff has come to court with clean hands?9. Whether the suit is malicious and filed to harass the defendant?10. Whether the plaint is based on false facts?11. Whether the suit is properly valued for court fee and jurisdiction?Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:The trial court partly decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, awarding Rs. 2 lakhs. The first appellate court, however, dismissed the suit, finding no malicious prosecution or defamation by the defendant. The court emphasized the lack of evidence of damage to the plaintiff's reputation, property, or person. It noted that the plaintiff failed to quantify damages and prove financial loss, mental agony, or defamation. The appellate court found no malicious intent in the defendant's actions and dismissed the suit accordingly.Significant Holdings:The court held that the mere institution of legal proceedings or acquittal does not constitute malicious prosecution. It outlined the elements required for malicious prosecution and emphasized the need to prove damage to reputation, property, or person. The court cited precedents to support its decision and concluded that there was no ground to interfere with the first appellate court's judgment. The second appeal was dismissed.In conclusion, the court found no merit in the plaintiff's claims of defamation, mental pain, and financial loss due to false litigation. The lack of evidence supporting these claims led to the dismissal of the suit in the second appeal.