( 1 ) THE revision-petitioner raised a preliminary point in the trial Court that the suit be dismissed as he is a judicial officer and is protected by the Judicial Officers protection Act, 1850. The trial Judge has postponed decision of that issue saying that it would be decided after recording evidence of both the parties inasmuch as before any protection is given to the defendant, the fact that he had jurisdiction to do the acts complained of is to be established and for that purpose evidence is necessary.

( 2 ) IT is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff commands great respect in the society. He is an ex-Malguzar possessing about 45 acres of agricultural lands jointly with his brother, Onkarsingh; his annual income is about Rs. 10,000. Before the merger of the States, he was in the employ of the Ruler of Sakti State as a mukhtar. Mr. D'souza (the defendant) is the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Sakti. The defendant is very friendly with Satyanarain and Sadhuram, proprietors of the janata Printing Works, Sakti, with whom the plaintiff's relations are strained. The defendant had an inclination to resort to abuse of legal process with a view to harass the plaintiff. He served upon the plaintiff a notice calling upon him to stop the use of mike in advertising his cinema shows at Sakti. Later on, the defendant endeavoured to stop the cinema itself, unless the licence was produced, although the defendant was informed by the plaintiff that he had sent it for renewal to bilaspur. With that background the plaintiff asserts that on the morning of the 10th December 1960, he sent Onkarsingh to the railway station to receive durgasingh, plaintiff's son-in-law, who was expected to come with his wife from gondia. At about 10-30 A. M. the plaintiff received information of a quarrel between Onkarsingh and some others having taken place and that the defendant had reached the railway station with the Police. The plaintiff, therefore, proceeded towards the railway station on his motor-cycle. However, on his way, he met onkarsingh at the Police Station House, where he had gone to make a report and from where he was proceeding for medical examination, as advised by the police. The plaintiff learned from Onkarsingh that Durgasingh and his wife had arrived and were at the railway station. The plaintiff then proceeded to the railway station. On reaching there, he found that Durgasingh was sitting in a hotel close-by. The defendant was standing on the road. A few minutes after the plaintiff had reached the railway station, the defendant got Durgasingh and his cousin, Ramdharisingh, who had reached there later than the plaintiff, arrested and handcuffed. Before the plaintiff could ascertain from the defendant what it was all about the latter abruptly went away to village Darra in his Jeep car and returned after some lime with his party and one Manbhulau under arrest. When the plaintiff requested the defendant to tell him for what offence he had arrested those persons and requested that they should be released on bail, the defendant did not respond to the plaintiff's request and abruptly ordered that the plaintiff be put under arrest. On being asked the reason of his arrest, the defendant did not reply. The defendant also turned down the request of the plaintiff not to be hand-cuffed and to be given a lift in the jeep car. Instead, the plaintiff was hand-cuffed and made to march on foot along with the other arrested persons from the railway station to the police station house through the mostly crowded and important part of the sakti town. His request for grant of bail was also curtly refused to be considered.

( 3 ) THE defendant substantially denied the allegations of malice and highhandedness. His defence is that having received information of an unlawful assembly being formed and having come to know that the Station House Officer was not available, he himself went to the Railway Station and ordered the assembly to disperse. Since th