( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge. Srikakulam, dated 15-2-1974 rejecting the plaint filed by the plaintiff.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff is the appellant herein. The suit was instituted against defendants 1 to 4 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 98,355-36 with subsequent interest at 6 per cent per annum towards damages for irregularities in conducting the sale of movable property. Defendant 1 is one Sri G. Veerabhadra Rao who was working as the then (principal) Subordinate Judge. Srikakulam. Defendant 2 is the receiver who has been appointed by the 1st defendant. Defendant 3 is the executive Officer of Devasthanam who filed the execution petition for executing the decree and defendant 1 is the advocate who appears for defendant 3. The case of the plaintiff is that for realisation of balance of the decretal amount in O. S. l /63 the 3rd defendant representing the decree holder deities got bled E. P. 64/72. The 4th defendant is the advocate who filed the execution petition. The standing crop belonging to the plaintiff was got attached. E. A. 351/72 dated 8-12-1972 was filed asking for the appointment of a receiver to get the attached property sold Sri Veerabhadra Rao, 1st defendant who was working as the then (Principal) Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam appointed one Sri B. Bhagirathi as receiver i. e. , the defendant to take possession of the paddy crop got attached in E. P. 64/72. auction it or in the alternative to cut, gather and harvest the paddy crop and to deposit the said produce into Court or its value. The plaintiff alleges that the receiver inflated the expenses and minimised the income by his several acts and omissions and that the plaintiff was deprived of an opportunity of raising greengram worth Rs. 6,000. 00. Therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to file the unnumbered suit O. S. of 1973 -to recover the damage from all the 4 defendants. According to the plaintiff, the total income would have been Rs. 42,250-00 consisting of Rupees 32,500/- being the value of the 30 graces of paddy at Rs 65/- per bag, Rs. 3,750. 00 being the value of hay, Rs. 6,000. 00 being the value of 30 bags of green-gram which could have been raised by the plaintiff. A sum of Rs. 4,225. 00 was deducted for cutting and harvesting operations and credit was given far Rupees 9,669-64 as the second defendant had deposited that amount into court and therefore, the plaintiff prayed for a decree for the balance of Rs. 28,355-86. The plaint was rejected by the learned subordinate Judge in view of S. 1-A of the Judicial officers Protection Act. 1850 as amended by a State Amendment by the State of Andhra Pradesh (Vide A. P. Act XXIII of 1958, Sec. 3 and Schedule (1-2-1960) ). The said section reads as follows:-- "no Judge, Magistrate, Justice of the Peace, Collector or other person acting judicially shall be liable to be sued in any Civil Court for any act done or ordered to be done by him in the discharge of his judicial duty, whether or not within the limits of his jurisdiction: provided that he at the time, in good faith, believed himself to have jurisdiction to do or order the act complained of and no officer of any court or other person, bound to execute the lawful warrants or orders of any such Judge Magistrate, Justice of the Peace, Collector or other person, acting judicially shall be liable to he rued in any Civil Court for the execution of any warrant or order, which he would be bound to execute ii within the jurisdiction of the person issuing the same," Relying upon various decisions of the Supreme Court particularly on the decision in Anowar Hussain v. Ajoy Kumar, AIR 1965 SC 1651, the Court below has held that the 1st defendant who was the (principal) subordinate Judge, Srikakulam at the time when the application for appointment of a receiver was made acted only in the discharge of his judicial duties and it was within his jurisdiction to deal with the matter in question and he was the judicial officer empow