AJITH KUMAR Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS C. R. P. is filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14. 2. 1997 of the Prl. Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram, on the plaint with c. F. No. 4412. The petitioner is an Advocate practising in Thiruvananthapuram. According to him, he was appearing along with his senior for the plaintiff in o. S. No. 1222 of 1996 on the file of the Munsiff s Court, Thiruvananthapuram. On behalf of the plaintiff in the above suit, the petitioner had obtained an order of injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from trespassing into B Schedule pathway. The first defendant in the above suit was one Gopalan nair, who was a retired Police Constable. After the order of interim injunction was obtained,' the brother of the first defendant filed a complaint before the sub Inspector of Police, Peroorkada Police Station against the brother of the first plaintiff, viz. Jayaprakash. Since there was an order of injunction obtained by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs instructed the petitioner to appear on behalf of the plaintiffs brother in the Police Station. It seems that the petitioner appeared before the Sub Inspector of Police to appraise him about the order of injunction. Petitioner has stated that the behaviour of the Sub inspector of Police who was impleaded as the first defendant in the suit was very bad. He made comments against the profession of Advocates and also against the Court. Further, according to the petitioner, the Inspector physically assaulted him and abused and insulted him. He grabbed the petitioner by neck and violently pushed him against the wall. Petitioner sustained acute pain when he was struck against the wall. Petitioner is seriously aggrieved by the wholly illegal acts of the first defendant and he has further stated that he is entitled to damages. Totally, he has claimed Rs. 70. 000/- as damages. They are split into the following claims: Notice under S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was given to the first defendant. Petitioner had also impleaded the State of Kerala as second defendant though no notice was issued to it under S. 80. No relief was also claimed against the State of Kerala .

(2.) THE learned Munsiff took the view that since the State is made a party, even though no relief is claimed against the State, notice under S. 80 (1) CPC to the second defendant is necessary. Hence, the plaint was returned for presentation after a copy of S. 80 notice is given to the 2nd defendant. It is against the above order that the present revision is filed.

(3.) 0. 27 R. SA CPC states as follows: "5 A. Government to be joined as a party in a suit against a publicotficer - 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 Government shall be joined as a party to the suit. " Thus, after the insertion of R. SA, it has become mandatory to implead the State as a party in cases where a suit is instituted against a public officer for anything done in his official capacity. 0. 27 CPC deals with suit by or against Government or public officers in their official capacity.