The respondent No.1 also lodged a report under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short I.P.C. with the police, resulting in prosecution of respondent No.2.
It was also pleaded that the suit was barred in view of provisions of Section 48 of the Act The learned trial Court framed several issues including Issue No.7 as to whether the suit was number maintainable as against the defendant No.2 in view of Section 48 of the Act.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Plaintiffs respondents are brothers carrying on business in partnership at Shahdol.
The respondents, therefore, claimed damages on account of malicious prosecution, as would be clear from para 10 of the plaint.
The defendants appellants resisted the claim.
He also raised heavy demands of tax and penalty and also got revocation of the Sales Tax registration certificate of the appellants.
Appeal in Civil Revision which has later companyverted to the Misc.
It was averred by the plaintiffs respondents that the appellant No.1 in order to extract illegal gratification and to pressurize the respondents, misusing the office, companyducted illegal search and seizure under the provisions of M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 hereinafter referred to as Act for short .
7 framed in the suit.
8270 of 2005 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Accordingly the trial companyrt directed that suit be permitted to be withdrawn under Order 23 Rule 1 3 a of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short the CPC with a liberty that they may institute fresh suit after obtaining necessary permission from the State Government.
2904 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP C No.
However, subsequently the prayer of the appellants to try Issue No.7 as above a preliminary issue, was accepted and after hearing the parties on the said issue trial companyrt held that the suit to be number maintainable.
Initially the case was fixed for recording evidence on all the issues.
Appellant No.2 at the relevant time in the year 1981 was Sales Tax Officer in the employment of appellant No.1 State of Madhya Pradesh.
4 B/92 passed by a learned Second Additional District Judge, Shahdol deciding issue No.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
It was based on falsehood.
Appeal relating to the judgment dated 15.11.1995 in Civil Suit No.
However, he was subsequently acquitted.
Challenge in this appeal is the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
They averred that the report lodged by defendant appellant No.1 was number true.
Challenge before the High Court was in a Misc.
