Judicial officers acting in a quasi-judicial capacity are protected from legal action under the Judicial Officers' Protection Act 1850 and the Judges (Protection) Act 1985.

JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - The instant revision petition reflects dismal picture, where the subordinate courts without even caring to go through the contents of the plaint(s), especially with regard to its maintainability, not only entertain such suits, but randomly issue notices to the opposite parties, thereby compelling them to incur unnecessary and otherwise avoidable expenses in defending such litigation(s) and making them unnecessary go through the ordeal and agony of a full fledged trial. Not only this, at times, the appeals arising out of such frivolous and otherwise not maintainable litigation (s) are carried forward not only to the first appellate court, but examples are not wanting, where such kind of cases have even reached the Hon''ble Supreme Court.

2. The background of this case is that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "plaintiff") had filed three appeals under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, R.T.I. Act) before the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant"), who being the then Deputy Commissioner was exercising the powers of an appellate authority under the R.T.I. Act, and the same were decided vide order dated 23.7.2015. The plaintiff thereafter issued a legal notice to the defendant stating therein that the latter, while exercising the powers of an appellate authority under R.T.I. Act, had denied the plaintiff''s right to engage a counsel and, therefore, she was liable to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with interest @ 15% till the realization of payment along with the legal notice fee to the tune of Rs. 2200/-.

3. The defendant responded to the legal notice by filing a reply, however the reply did not deter the plaintiff from filing the suit for recovery of the aforesaid amount, which he did before the learned trial court. The defendant, after putting in appearance before the learned trial court, filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11(d) CPC for rejection of the plaint as the same was barred under law.

4. However, the learned trial court dismissed the application vide order dated 4.9.2017 by observing that since the plaintiff had not assailed the order passed by the defendant under R.T.I. Act and had rather filed a suit on the basis of violation of his legal right, whereby the defendant had refused to accept the power of attorney of the counsel for the plaintiff, therefore, the suit was maintainable.

5. It is against this order that the defendant has filed the instant petition on various grounds including the ground that the learned trial court while passing the impugned order had failed to take into consideration the provisions of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed on record.

7. Adverting to the relative merits of the case, it would be necessary to reproduce the plaint and the same reads as under:-

"IN THE COURT OF LD. CIVIL JUDGE SR. DIVISION BILASPUR (H.P.)

IN THE MATTER OF :-

Madan Lal Sharma S/O Shri Hari Ram R/O village Bagtheru P.O. Bhager, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P.................Plaintiff

Versus

Mansi Sahay Thakur, the then Deputy Commissioner, District Bilaspur, H.P. at present posted as Director Woman and Child Devlopment Department, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.................Defendant

Suit for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with interest @18% P.A. accrued thereon till realization, in favour of the plaintif and against.

Hon''ble Sir,

The plaintiff respectfully submits as under:

1. That the plaintiff had engaged a counsel/Advocate Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate District Courts Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh for representing/contesting three appeals titled as Madan Lal Sharma vs. PIO office of Deputy Commissioner, District Bilaspur, H.P. filed under section 18(1) of Right To Information Act, 2005. 2. That the plaintiff had engaged the counsel for placing/representing/contesting his version as an