C.R No.7231 of 2019

2023:PHHC:074516

271

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

C.R No. 7231 of 2019 (O&M)

DATE OF DECISION: 18.05.2023

Gurmeet Singh

…Petitioner

Versus

Balram Dass and others

…Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Present :

Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate,

For the petitioner.

Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate,

For the respondents.

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

Petition herein, inter alia, is for setting aside order dated

05.07.2019 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior

Division), Dasuya, vide which application filed by petitioner/plaintiff

under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, impleading State of Punjab as defendant

No.8 in Civil Suit No.24 of 2019 titled “Gurmeet Singh v. Balram Dass

and others” was dismissed.

2.

Succinct facts first.

2.1

Petitioner has filed a suit for damages and for recovery

on account of malicious prosecution before the Court below with the

averments that he was working as Secretary in Bassi Jalal

Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Limited (hereinafter

referred to as “Society”). Respondents No.3 to 5, being committee

members of the Society, passed a resolution dated 26.04.2012 for

registration of FIR against petitioner for embezzlement of funds of

SHALINI BHATIA

2023.06.02 16:48

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this order/ judgment

C.R No.7231 of 2019

2023:PHHC:074516

society and for making bogus entries in day book of society,

amounting to Rs.17,500/-.Respondent No.1, who was working as

Assistant Registrar of the Society at the relevant time wrote letter to

police, on the basis of which FIR No.104 dated 18.06.2012 under

Section 409 IPC was registered at Police Station Tanda, Hoshiarpur.

Petitioner was arrested and after conclusion of trial, he was acquitted

vide judgment dated 23.8.2017. Since false FIR was registered

against petitioner, he filed the civil suit for damages.

2.2

Upon notice, defendants No.1 to 5 and 7 appeared and

filed written statement taking objection that Government of Punjab is

a necessary party in view of Order 27 Rule 5-A CPC, besides other

objections.

3.

Plaintiff/petitioner

herein

moved

an

application

(Annexure P-2)under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading State of

Punjab through its Secretary as defendant No.8. Reply to application

was filed by defendants taking objection that statutory notice under

Section 80 CPC was not issued.

4.

Learned trial Court dismissed said application vide order

dated 05.07.201 (Annexure P-4), which is impugned herein.

3.

I have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone

through the records.

4.

While issuing notice of motion, a co-ordinate Bench of

this Court presided over by Raj Mohan Singh, J. (as he then was

seized of the matter) passed the following order, which sums up the

controversy herein:

SHALINI BHATIA

2023.06.02 16:48

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this order/ judgment

C.R No.7231 of 2019

2023:PHHC:074516

“

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that

the appeal against acquittal was filed by Waryam Singh-

respondent No.7 in his personal capacity. Thereafter, the

appeal was got dismissed as withdrawn as no sanction to

prosecute the petitioner was granted by the competent

authority. The question arises whether impleadment of

State of Punjab at a later stage would invite compliance

of notice under Section 80 CPC or not.

Learned counsel further contends that even if the

State is not found to be necessary party, the State would

be a proper party for just decision of the case.

Notice of motion for 05.03.2020.”

5.

Apropos, on resumed hearing today, on a Court query,

learned counsel for petitioner candidly states that petitioner/plaintiff shall

not seek relief against State of Punjab in pending proceedings before the

Court but he claims that damages have been soug