A suit filed against a public officer for acts done during the performance of official duties requires mandatory notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even if the plaintiff claims the act was motivated by personal malice or defamed them.

ORDER

Heard Mr. N. Deka, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Hoque, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/caveator.

2. By filing this application under Section 115 CPC, the petitioner, who is the defendant no.1 in T.S. No. 2/2025, has assailed the order dated 01.04.2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nalbari, thereby dismissing Misc. (J) Case No. 53/2025, filed under Order VII Rule 11 read with Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC.

3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner/defendant no.1, who was the then District Commissioner, Nalbari district. At the said relevant time, the wife of the respondent/plaintiff was posted as a Circle Officer under the Office of the District Commissioner, Nalbari.

4. It has been submitted that in connection with an official work, on 08.03.2024, the office peon from the establishment of the District Commissioner, Nalbari, had gone to the rented house of the Circle Officer to serve a letter. Later on, the said office peon submitted a complaint before the petitioner alleging that he had suffered unruly behavior and harassment by the respondent no.1/plaintiff, who had recorded his video, when he had gone there. Accordingly, the petitioner, as the District Commissioner, Nalbari, had written a letter to the Registrar, Bhattadev University, Pathsala, Bajali, where the respondent no.1/ plaintiff was serving, to enquire into the matter.

5. It was submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that subsequently, the respondent no.1- plaintiff had issued an advocate’s notice dated 30.08.2024 to the petitioner/ defendant no.1 by registered post, alleging mala fide intention to defame the respondent no.1/ plaintiff and he was asked to reply within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice as to why legal action, criminal and civil, should not be initiated against the petitioner.

6. It was submitted that thereafter, by projecting having been defamed, the respondent no.1/ plaintiff had filed T.S. No. 2/2025, before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nalbari, amongst others, praying for decree of compensation of Rs.2.00 Crore from the petitioner /defendant no.1; a decree for attachment of movable and immovable properties, for payment of decreetal amount on failure to comply with the decree; and for any other relief as the respondent no.1/ plaintiff may be entitled to.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all the communications, with which the respondent no.1/ plaintiff was aggrieved and referred to in the plaint, they were all issued/ made in her capacity as the then District Commissioner, Nalbari, but no notice under Section 80 CPC was served on the petitioner. Moreover, Govt. of Assam would be a proper and necessary party and therefore, the petitioner had filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, read with Order VI, Rule 16 of the CPC for striking out paragraph nos. 3 to 42 of the plaint of T.S. No. 2/2025, as frivolous and vexatious under Order VI, Rule 16 CPC and for rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC. The said petition no. 827/2025 was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 53/2025.

8. The learned trial Court, by the impugned order dated 01.04.2026, rejected the said petition, inter alia, on the ground that the respondent/defendant no.1 had made some allegations of unruly behavior and harassment against the respondent/plaintiff in writing to the Reg