1. This appeal is entirely concluded by the findings of the Appellate court. The findings are as clear as any Judge sitting in second appeals would desire.
2. The suit was brought on account of an alleged malicious prosecution. The lower court found that the plaintiffs-respondents purchased some lands, and got possession over the Sir lands which belonged to their vendors, after obtaining mutation of names in their favour and that, when they went to till the lands the defendant resisted and caused hurt. It further found that the appellant made a false report to the police and took steps to bring about the conviction of the plaintiffs. It came to the conclusion that the charge brought by the defendant appellant was utterly false and was, therefore, malicious.
3. It was urged that, the fact that, the plaintiffs had been convicted by the court of first instance of criminal jurisdiction, although they were acquitted by the Sessions Judge, was a clear and conclusive evidence to show that the charge brought by the defendant was a bona fide charge. In support of this argument the case of Sadubar Singh v. Sheo Saran Singh 21 A. 26 : A.W.N. (1898) 161 : 9 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 728. has been cited. That case was decided on the peculiar facts of it and it does not lay down that a suit for malicious prosecution is not maintainable where there is a conviction by the Court of first instance and an acquittal by the Appellate Criminal Court. The evidence in the case was gone into by the lower Appellate Court and this Court is bound by the findings already mentioned.
4. In my opinion there is nothing in this appeal. It is dismissed under Order 41, Ruler 11 Civil Procedure Civil.