RSA No.1939 of 2013 (O&M)

[ 1 ]

RSA No.2235 of 2013 (O&M)

RSA No.2236 of 2013 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

(1)

RSA No.1939 of 2013 (O&M)

Date of decision:20.05.2014

Raghbir Singh

...Appellant

Versus

Baljit Singh Buttar and others

...Respondents

(2)

RSA No.2235 of 2013 (O&M)

Date of decision:20.05.2014

Raghbir Singh

...Appellant

Versus

Jaspal Singh

...Respondent

(3)

RSA No.2236 of 2013 (O&M)

Date of decision:20.05.2014

Raghbir Singh

...Appellant

Versus

Kuldeep Singh and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

Present:

Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Advocate,

for the appellant.

*****

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.

This order shall dispose of three appeals bearing RSA

Nos.1939, 2235 and 2236 of 2013 as the issue involved in all these appeals

is common.

vinod kumar

2014.05.27 11:34

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

RSA No.1939 of 2013 (O&M)

[ 2 ]

RSA No.2235 of 2013 (O&M)

RSA No.2236 of 2013 (O&M)

The plaintiff-appellant filed suit for recovery of `25 lacs as

damages/compensation alleging that he is well respected and well to do

citizen of the country whose political and social image has been tarnished

by the defendants by entering his name in the Surveillance Register No.X

kept under Rule 23.4 of the Punjab Police Rules, Volume-III, in Police

Station Gidderbaha and vide letter dated 26.06.1997 addressed by defendant

no.2 to defendant no.1, history sheet of the plaintiff was opened by

informing defendant no.1 about the registration of various cases against the

plaintiff recommending that name of the plaintiff be put in Basta `B' of

Police Station Gidderbaha and defendant no.1, without getting the matter

inquired into, accepted the recommendation with mala fide intention by

writing the words “Parvangi Ditti Jandi Hai” (English translation means

“accepted”), without forming an opinion that the plaintiff was reasonably

believed to be an habitual offender etc.

The Trial Court decreed the suit holding the plaintiff entitled to

recover damages in the sum of `1,00,000/- from each of the defendant (total

amounting to `3 lacs) along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of

decree till actual realization.

All the three defendants filed their separate appeals challenging

the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Their appeals were allowed on

the ground that the plaintiff did not comply with the previous Order 27 Rule

5-A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 which provides “where a suit is

instituted against a public officer for damages or other relief in respect of

any act alleged to have been done by him in his official capacity, the

vinod kumar

2014.05.27 11:34

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

RSA No.1939 of 2013 (O&M)

[ 3 ]

RSA No.2235 of 2013 (O&M)

RSA No.2236 of 2013 (O&M)

Government shall be joined as a party to the suit” and that notice under

Section 80 CPC was not served before filing the suit. While allowing the

appeals filed by the defendants, the lower Appellate Court made the

following observations:-

“Furthermore, the plaintiff was required to serve a prior

notice under Section 80 CPC upon the defendants prior

to the institution of the suit. In the case in hand, neither

the State of Punjab has been impleaded nor any notice

under Section 80 CPC has been served upon the

defendants. In such circumstances, the suit of the

plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of

proper and necessary parties and reference can be made

to a decision reported as 1992 Civil Court Cases page

400 (Karnataka)-N.C. Channabasappa Vs. Assistant

Education Officer,

w herein it has been laid down as

following:-

“That Order 27 Rule 5-A of Civil Procedure

Code mandates that the Government be made a

party whenever an officer is sued for damages in

the disch