R.P. SHARMA Vs. ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only submission of learned Counsel for petitioner is that not arraigning the Central Government as a party defendant in O.S. No. 2819/2002 when instituted on 20.04.2002, was a mistake made in good faith and therefore, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in R.R. Naidu vs. State of M.P. and others, (2000)10 SCC 141, the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCCH -15), Bengaluru, was not justified in rejecting I.A. No. 2 under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

(2.) PETITIONER instituted O.S. No. 2819/2002 for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/ - on the premise that the first defendant Ashok Kumar, Inspector of Police; 2nd defendant Dr. Dilip Kumar, Superintendent of Police and 3rd Defendant Ashok Harnahali, learned Counsel for Central Government, had, in the counter/statement of objections to Crl. Petition No. 2970/2001 filed by one Dr. N. Nagambika Devi on 04.09.2001, wife of the petitioner, made defamatory statements with a dishonest intention of tarnishing the image of the plaintiff, more appropriately while reading in the open Court at the time of arguments, the contents of the counter statement, in the presence of members of the Bar and couple of litigant public, few friends and relatives of plaintiff and his wife who were also present in the Court.

(3.) IN the meanwhile, petitioner having noticed Order XXVII Rule 5A of CPC filed I.A. No. 2 under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead Central Government as party defendant No. 4. In the affidavit accompanying the application, petitioner stated that in the suit for damages, by "inadvertence" the Central Government was not made a party though the defendants 1 and 2 are officers of the Central Government and therefore, the proposed defendant was a proper and necessary party regard being had to Order XXVII Rule 5A of CPC requiring the Central Government to be joined in as party defendant in a suit for damages against public officers. That application was opposed by filing statement of objections of the 1st and 3rd defendant inter -alia denying the assertion of "inadvertence" and pointing out to Order XXVII Rule 5A of CPC making it mandatory to arraign the Central Government as defendant in a suit for damages against public officers. In addition it was stated that the application was belated and hence not maintainable either in law or on facts. According to the defendants the defect being incurable the application was not maintainable.