ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.9.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the 1st Civil Judge Class-I, Janjgir, in Civil Suit No.91A/17, whereby application preferred by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC has been allowed and impleaded the petitioner/Tahsildar as defendant No.3.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.11.2017 respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration, injunction and damages to the tune of Rs.9,50,000/- against defendants No.1 and 2 alleging that the plaintiff is owner of the land bearing khasra No.3340/3 area 0.01 acre situated at village Janjgir and the said land was purchased by the plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 13.12.1996. Defendant No.1-Geeta Bai filed an application under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'Code') in the Court of Tahsildar, Janjgir, in which she has stated that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 has encroached upon the land area 0.0814 acre bearing khasra No.3441/1. On filing such application, a revenue case bearing No.13/A-70/2016-17 was registered and notice was issued to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed his reply on 10.7.2017 denying the allegation of encroachment. The petitioner/Tahsildar proceeded exparte against the plaintiff and passed an order on 16.7.2017 declaring that the plaintiff has encroached the land upon 36.5x40 feet and also issued warrant of dispossession on 16.10.2017. The plaintiff has filed an application under section 52 of the Code before the Tahsildar, Janjgir, which was rejected by the Tahsildar vide order dated 25.10.2017, against which, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Janjgir and in which, stay order has been passed in favour of the plaintiff. On 26.10.2017 in spite of the stay order in favour of the plaintiff/respondent No.1, representatives of defendant No1/respondent No.2 forcibly entered the land and caused damage to the house of the plaintiff. Initially the petitioner was not made as a party, but subsequently an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC was filed by the plaintiff that the petitioner is also responsible for damages caused to the plaintiff and for the same, the plaintiff has served notice under Section 80 of the CPC to the State Government including the Tahsildar, Janjgir. By the impugned order, the petitioner has been arrayed as a party defendant.

3. Mr.Amratya Rajwade, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner has passed judicial order in the official capacity and as such, he should not have been impleaded as a party in his personal capacity. So, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

4. On the other hand, Mr.Bharat Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff, would support the impugned order and submit that civil suit is already pending for consideration and this fact was brought to the notice of the petitioner/Tahsildar, but with an ulterior intention, the impugned order has been passed.

5. Mr.Avinash K. Mishra, learned State Counsel, would submit that Revenue Officers while discharging the duties and passing judicial orders acting as a Court, so the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 governed to them and as per Section 3 of the said Act, no Court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceeding against any person for the Act in discharge of his official or judicial capacity or judicial duty or function.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also perused the records with utmost circumspection.

7. Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 reads as follows:-

“3. Additional protection to Judges.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force and subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), no Court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceeding against any person who is or was a Judge f