IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.: 479 of 2017.

Decided on: 11.03.2020 Sh. Desh Raj .…Petitioner.

Versus Smt. Veena Devi and others ...Respondents.

Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes For the petitioner : Ms. Leena Guleria, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Balram Sharma, Advocate.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Chonstitution of India, petitioner has assailed order dated 2g0.07.2017, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr.

iDivn.), Court No. 3, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. vide which an application filed by the petitioner, who is the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court, for impleading State of Himachal Pradesh as a party-defendant in the application, has been dismissed.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for damages based on malicious (cid:1)(cid:2)

(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:14)(cid:13)(cid:15)(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:18)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:9)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:18)(cid:21)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:4)(cid:23)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)

prosecution against respondents No. 1 to 4 herein, who, in the written statement so filed before the learned Trial Court, have taken an objection with regard to non-joinder of necessary parties, i.e. the State of H.P. was a necessary party in the suit. Pursuant thereto, thef petitioner filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for impleadmentt the State of H.P. as party defendant, which application stands dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide impugned Order. She has argued that learned Trial Court has erred in dismissing the said application without appreciating that as the criminal trial was initiathed against the present petitioner by the State and the prosecution department of the State, therefore, the State was a necessary party for the purpose of adjudication of the suit. As per her, even otherwise, the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is neither a reasoned nor a speaking order.

3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that there is nothing wrong in the order which has been passed by the learned Court below and the filing of the application for impleadment of the State as party defendant is nothing but an attempt to delay the adjudication of the suit filed by the petitioner herein before the learned Trial Court, which otherwise also is having no merit.

4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order as wefll as other documents appended with the petition.

5. As is borne out frotm the record, the petitioner has filed a suit for damages based on malicious prosecution against the present respondents. To meet the objection raised by the present respondents in the written statement before the learned Trial Court that the suit was bad for non-joinder of nehcessary parties, petitioner filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned Trial Court. This application was dismissed by the learned Court below by observing that in every criminal case, State prosecutes the wrong doers/accused on behalf of the victim against whom the offence has been committed. Learned Trial Court held that in a suit for damages for malicious prosecution, State cannot be made a party merely because the trial has resulted in acquittal and if same is allowed, then it will lead to unnecessary burden on the State Exchequer.

6. In my considered view, the reasoning which has been assigned by the l