The main legal principle established is that a public officer's actions, if apparently an official act, will not be changed by allegations of bad faith, and the officer may be entitled to a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

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) 1946 Pat. 31: (24 Pat. 514), Jyoti Prasad V/s. Henry Seddon, 19 Pat. 433: (A. I. R. (27) 1940 Pat. 516) and Revati Mohan Das V/s. Jatindra Mohan, 61 I. A. 171 : (A. I. R. 21) 1934 P. C. 96).

5. On the other hand, the view consistently taken in this Court and other High Courts is that if an act done by a public officer is apparently an official act, its character as such will not be changed by allegations that it was done in bad faith or that it had not that character which it purports, to have; see Koti Reddi V/s. Subbiah, 41 Mad. 792: (A. I. R. (5) 1918 Mad. 62 F. B.), Nand Kumar Sinha V/s. Pashupathi Ghosh, A. I. R. (28) 1941 Pat. 385: (42 Cr. L. J. 375) and Muhammad Sharif V/s. Nasir Ali, 63 ALL. 44: (A. I. R. (17) 1930 ALL. 742).

6. For these reasons, the appeal must be allowed and the Suit of the plaintiff dismissed. Having regard to the finding that the act complained of was malicious, the parties will bear their own costs in all the Courts.