The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of section 318 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, regarding the indemnity for acts done in good faith and the phrase 'intended to be done under this Act'.

ORDER :

Shri H.K. Shukla with Shri D. K. Agrawal, counsel for the applicant.

Shri B. M. Patel, Government Advocate for the respondent No. 1/ State.

Shri N. K. Gupta, Senior Counsel with Shri Pawan Vijaywargiya and Shri

S. D. Singh, counsel for the respondent No. 5. Shri Arman Ali, counsel for the respondent No. 6.

2. This Civil Revision under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code has been filed against the order dated 7-11-2012 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Sheopur in Civil Suit No. 12B of 2011 (Original Civil Suit No. 4B of 1997), by which the preliminary issues framed by the trial Court have been decided against the applicant.

3. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present revision in short are that the respondents No. 5 to 8/- plaintiffs have filed a suit for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs.12,64,300/-against the applicant and other defendants on the ground that the plaintiffs are the owners and in possession of three-storeyed building situated in Ward No. 13, Near Gandhi Park Golmbar, Sheopurkala. It is also known as “Soma Lodge”. The back portion of said building is used for residential purpose, whereas the remaining portion is used for lodge, shops and offices. The construction of the building was over in the year 1984 and the plaintiffs is running the said lodge from the said year. The office of respondent No. 5 who is an Advocate by profession, is also situated in the said building. The land situated between the front portion of the house and the culvert is used for visiting the building. It was further pleaded that when the construction was going on, then the Officers of the Municipal Council, Revenue Officers and other officers of the Department were also noticing the construction, but it was never objected by them. In the year 1985, a notice was given by the Municipal Council on the ground of raising construction without obtaining permission and, thereafter, the matter was compounded by order dated 25-8-1986. In the month of January, 1997, the applicant was posted on the post of Additional Collector but he was already transferred, whereas other defendants No. 2 and 3 were also posted in Sheopur in their official capacity. On 27th January, 1997, at about 06:00 pm, the applicant as well as the respondents along with police force started demolishing a portion of the building and since the demolition was not stopped, as a result of which the remaining part of building also got damaged. It was also pleaded that when a notice was given to the Municipal Council, then a false reply was given pleading that a notice was issued to the plaintiffs which was refused by the plaintiff No. 1, as a result of which the notice of demolition was affixed on the building. It was also mentioned in the plaint that no such notice was either served or affixed on the building.

4. The defendants filed their written statements and on the basis of written statements, four preliminary issues were framed as under :—

“(1) Whether the suit is maintainable in the light of provisions of sections 188 and 318 of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 and whether the plaintiffs are entitled for any compensation?

(2) Whether the applicant was working on the post of Executive Magistrate and whether he is entitled for protection under the Judicial Officers’ Protection Act?

(3) Whether the action was taken under section 223 of M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961 and whether the suit is maintainable in the light of alternative remedy of filing an appeal?

(4) Whether the suit is maintainable in absence of notice under section 319 of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961 and section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code?

5. All these preliminary issues have been decided against the applicant by the Trial Court by order dated 7-11-2012 passed in Civil Suit No. 12B of 2011. Hence, this present revision.

6. Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that undisputedly, the applicant was wor