N.L.Untwalia, J.

1. This appeal by the plaintiff arises out of a suit filed by him for a decree for damages for a sum of Rs. 25,000 against the two defendants said to be liable jointly and severally. The plaintiffs case is that he is a colliery proprietor living at village Khanudih, pergana Nawagarh, in the district of Dhanbad. He has got extensive cultivation and is an income-tax paver. He belongs to a respectable Brahmin family of the District of Dhanbad, has got his relations in other districts around and is held in high esteem amongst his caste men and also by his relatives, neighbours and various important persons within the district of Dhanbad. Shri Suresh Chandra Gupta, defendant No. 1 was a Magistrate exercising first Class powers, within the Baghmara Sub-Division and was posted at Dhanbad. Daya Sagar Sharan, defendant No. 2, was an Upper Division Clerk attached to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad. The plaintiffs case is that defendant No. 1, as Sub Divisional Magistrate, Baghmara, at Dhanbad, by memo No. 3818 dated 5-12-60 issued a letter to him asking Mm to appear on 13-12-60 at 10.30 a. m. and directed him to show cause against prosecution on the petition filed by one Mohri Majhi and others. The letter purports to bear the signature of defendant No. 1 with date 3/12. According to the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 was not a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Baghmara, on 5-12-60 or 13-12-60, he had no authority to issue any memo to the plaintiff directing him to appear, no cognizane of any offence had been taken against the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 exercised his functions arbitrarily in issuing the aforesaid memo. On 13-12-60 the plaintiff came to Dhanbad in connection with some civil work He was standing near the Dhanbad Bar Library. At about 4.15 p. m. defendant No. 2 accompanied by a Court constable came to the Bar Library and told the plaintiff that he was directed by defendant No. 1 to appear in his chamber. The plaintiff accordingly went to his court although he was not holding any court at that time, and he brought the record of C. M. A. No. 24 of 1960, State V/s. S. N. Pandey and put the plaintiff to hazat In the said case, no summons was served upon the plaintiff nor was any warrant of arrest for disobedience of the summons issued. There was no occasion for the issue of warrant of arrest and the action of the defendant was wrongful In the 11th paragraph of the plaint the case is that -

"The defendant No. I. Shree S. C. Gupta, a Certificate Officer, Baghmara with inordinate and unbecoming zeal of realising the certificate dues asked the defendant No. 2 to bring the record The plaintiff furnished sureties in the aforesaid Criminal case but the defendant no, 1 in order to coerce and put undue pressure upon the plaintiff for paying up the certificate dues sent the plaintiff to Hazat"

Plaintiffs case further is that he furnished bail bonds but defendant No. 1, on some pretext or other, did not accept the bail bond from 13-12-60 to 16-12-60 Plaintiffs men applied for bail with sureties, who were local men and income-tax payers, but defendant No. 1 illegally on some pretext or other did not pass any order and deferred the matter. On 27-12-60, the plaintiff states, he along with his son Shvama Kanta Pandev who was also a co-accused in a mining case appeared before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Baghmara. at Dhanbad. in that case. Defendant no 1 was doing the work as Sub-Divisional Magistrate and in open court, in presence of litigant public respectable persons and the lawyers be declared that he would put the plaintiff to Hazat if the certificate dues of his son were not paid. No warranf was issued either in C. M. A. 24 of 1960 or in the certificate case pending against the plaintiff, and there was no order that the warrant was to be executed at Dhanbad. Defendants 1 and 2 or the court constable were not armed with any authority to call the plaintiff and put him to Hazat. The first defendant acted ma