1. In this appeal by the defendant the only question for decision is whether the appellant was entitled to a notice under Section 80, Civil P. C. which admittedly has not been served upon him in this case.

2. The facts found are that the appellant as a headman of a village appointed under Bihar Act VI [6] of 1948 filed malicious petitions against the plaintiff accusing him of the offences which upon the evidence it has been found were not committed by him at all.

3. It is apparent to us that in this case notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure ought to have been given because the appellant is a public officer appointed under Bihar Act VI [6] of 1943 to carry on certain duties which may be assigned to him from time to time by the District Magistrate of the area concerned, and secondly because he purported to act as a public officer.

4. A large number of cases have been cited before us on behalf of the respondent, but the cases relied upon on behalf of the respondent can be distinguished on the ground that in those cases it was found that there was no illegal act committed by the public officer; for instance see Surendra Nath V/s. Jagat Narain, A. I. R. (83) 19