Get Advice on Live Video Call
Earn $ Cash $ with
consultations on Bissoy App

The defendant had filed a complaint to the Magistrate against the plaintiff. The complaint was dismissed. The defendant moved the Sessions Judge in appeal. He got himself examined in Sessions trial although he knew the charge was false and he was acting without reasonable and probable cause. His complaint was dismissed by the Session Judge. Thereupon the plaintiff filed a suit for malicious prosecution against the defendant.<br>In the aforesaid case, which one of the following conclusion in correct?

Correct Answer: The defendant is liable for malicious prosecution

Which of the following statements is/are correct in connection with malicious prosecution?
1. Malice is to be inferred from the acquittal of the plaintiff.
2. Malice is not to be inferred from the acquittal of the plaintiff.
3. The plaintiff must prove independently of the acquittal that his prosecution was without reasonable and probable cause,
4. The plaintiff is not required to prove that his prosecution was without reasonable and probable cause.
Select the correct answer using the given below:

Which of the following requirements form an essential element of the tort of malicious prosecution?
1. Prosecution of the plaintiff by the defendant
2. Termination of the case in favour of the defendant
3. Termination of the case in favour of the plaintiff
4. Presence of reasonable and probable cause
5. Absence of reasonable and probable cause
6. Malice on the part of the defendant
7. Damage suffered by the plaintiff
Select the correct answer using the given below:

A theft had been committed in the defendant's house. He informed the police that he suspected the plaintiff for the same. Therefore the plaintiff was arrested by the police. A complaint was filed by the defendant but the plaintiff was subsequently discharged by the magistrate as the final report showed that there was no evidence connecting the plaintiff with the theft. The plaintiff filed a suit for damages on the ground of malicious prosecution.
In the above case, which one of the following decisions is correct?

In a suit filed by the plaintiff, the defendant in his written statement has taken the objection of non-impleadment of necessary party. Despite such objection the plaintiff continued the suit and the suit finally was decreed. At the first appellate stage, the plaintiff withdraws the suit with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action and subsequently filed a fresh suit. The period spent by the plaintiff in the earlier suit, under section 14 of Limitation Act is

Consider the following statements:
In an action for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove that the
1. Plaintiff was prosecuted by the defendant.
2. Prosecution ended in the plaintiffs favour.
3. Defendant acted without reasonable and probable cause.
Which of the statements given above are correct?

Consider the following statements in regard to institute a case of malicious prosecution:
1. The proceeding must have been instituted by the defendant.
2. The proceeding must have terminated in favour of the defendant.
3. The defendant must have acted without reasonable and probable cause.
4. The defendant must have acted maliciously.
Which of the statements given above are correct?

C, a stranger blocked the water pipes of a wash-basin and opened the tap. The wash-basin was otherwise in the control of the defendant B. The overflowing water damaged the plaintiff goods. Thereupon the plaintiff filed a suit for damages against the defendant B. C was not made a party.
In the aforesaid suit which one of the following conclusions is correct?

Assertion (A): In an action for malicious prosecution it must be proved that the defendant had initiated criminal proceeding maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause.
Reason (R): Action for malicious prosecution is instituted in criminal court

To constitute a matter of res judicata which of the following conditions must concur?
1. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue either actually (section 11, explanation III) or constructively (section 11, explanation IV) in the former suit
2. The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties under whom they or any of them claim. Explanation VI of Section 11 must be read with this condition
3. The parties as aforesaid must have litigated under the same title in the former suit
4. The court which decided the former suit must have been a court competent to try the subsequent suit of the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised. Explanation II of section 11 is to be read with condition
5. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the court in the first suit. Explanation V of section 11 is to be read with this condition

A civil suit was repeatedly fixed by the trial court for examination of the defendant's witnesses but the said opportunity was not availed by the defendant, therefore on 18th November 2016 when neither the defendant nor his counsel had appeared, the trial court had proceeded ex parte and heard the final arguments and reserved the case for judgement. On 28th November 2016 the defendant had filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is