Lalit v. Durga
Case brief
What is this about?
This second appeal challenged a confirming judgment dismissing a malicious prosecution suit. The High Court held that although the suit was filed within the limitation period, the plaintiffs failed to discharge the initial burden of proving the prosecution was malicious and without reasonable cause, thus dismissing the appeal.
What did the court decide?
The second appeal filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed, allowing the confirming judgment and decree.
What the court decided
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK
SA No.305 of 1997
From the judgment and decree dated 19.4.1997 and 30.4.1997 respectively passed by Sri G.Narasimham, learned District Judge, Cuttack in Money Appeal No.14 of 1994 confirming the judgment and decree dated 6.10.1994 and 27.10.1994 respectively passed by Sri S. Nayak, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur in M.S No.24 of 1987.
| Lalit Kumar Parida & others | …. Appellants |
|---|---|
| Versus | |
| Durga Charan Parida & others | …. Respondents |
| For Appellants | … Mr.Ajit Chandra Mohapatra, Adv. |
| For Respondents | … None |
J U D G M E N T
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.RATH
Date of hearing: 04.05.2018 : Date of judgment: 14.05.2018
Dr. A.K.Rath, J. Plaintiffs are the appellants against a confirming judgment in a suit for recovery of Rs.1600/- from the defendants.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court was justified in holding that the suit filed within one year was not barred by limitation despite factual discrepancies regarding time of alleged theft.
Whether the plaintiffs discharged the initial burden of proving that the earlier prosecution was instituted maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Lalit Kumar Parida & others
- respondent
Durga Charan Parida & others
Coram
Dr. A.K.Rath
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court