Case Note & Summary
The applicant (defendant in the original suit) filed a Civil Revision Application under Section 115 CPC challenging the order of the Trial Court dated 2nd January 2024, which rejected his application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. The respondent (plaintiff) had filed a suit for malicious prosecution against the applicant, alleging that the applicant had instituted proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against him, in which the respondent was acquitted. The applicant argued that the suit was not maintainable because the respondent had admittedly issued the cheque that was dishonoured, and the mere fact of acquittal does not furnish a cause of action for malicious prosecution. The applicant relied on the Delhi High Court judgment in Nau Nihal Singh Rana v. Sunil Kumar, 2013 Supreme (Del) 927, where the plaint was rejected on similar grounds. The respondent's counsel argued that the suit was maintainable and that the application was rightly rejected. The High Court, after hearing both sides, allowed the civil revision application, set aside the Trial Court's order, and allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, thereby rejecting the plaint. The court held that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action for malicious prosecution, as the respondent had admitted issuing the cheque, and the acquittal alone could not form the basis of such a suit. The court also noted that the statements made in previous proceedings do not by themselves give rise to a cause of action for damages or compensation.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Cause of Action - The court considered whether a suit for malicious prosecution is maintainable merely because the plaintiff was acquitted in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that acquittal alone does not furnish a cause of action for malicious prosecution, especially when the cheque was admittedly issued by the plaintiff. The plaint was rejected as it did not disclose a cause of action. (Paras 1-5) B) Negotiable Instruments Act - Malicious Prosecution - Section 138 - Cause of Action - The court held that the institution of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the dishonour of a cheque admittedly issued by the plaintiff does not, by itself, give rise to a cause of action for a suit for malicious prosecution. The mere fact of acquittal is insufficient to sustain such a suit. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit for malicious prosecution based solely on acquittal in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is maintainable and whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Application is allowed. The order dated 2nd January 2024 passed by the Trial Court is set aside. The application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed and the plaint is rejected.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- malicious prosecution
- cause of action
- Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
- acquittal alone insufficient
