GULAB SINGH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 23 -4 -1999, passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Sagar, whereby the plaint filed by the appellants for claiming compensation from the respondents to the tune of Rs. One lac, has been returned for presentation to the proper Court. The Court below held that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The facts of this case are that the son of the appellants was an accused in a pending Sessions Trial No. 199/1993. He was lodged in Bhopal jail and was being escorted to the Sessions Court at Vidisha, on 14 -7 -1994 in the custody of police. It was alleged by the appellants that their son Raju Thakur was shot dead by the respondent No. 5 when he was being escorted to Vidisha Court from Bhopal on 14 -7 -1994. On account of the fact that the death of said Raju Thakur had occurred during custody of police, the appellants were awarded Rs. One Lac by order dated 6 -1 -1998, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3095/97. In that writ petition, this Court, however, left the question of further compensation open and directed that in case, the appellants claim compensation/damages for more than Rs. One Lac, already awarded, they may move the Civil Court. The Court, granting further compensation, shall also take note of the fact that the appellants have already been granted an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ - by order of this Court dated 6 -1 -1998, passed in Writ Petition No. 3095/97. Thereupon, the appellants filed a suit for Rs. 10,00,000/ - in the Court of District Judge, Sagar. The Additional District Judge, at Sagar, before whom the civil suit was pending, by the impugned order, returned the plaint to the appellants for presentation to the proper Court in view of section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has been held by the Court at Sagar that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit.

(2.) THE question that has to be decided in this appeal is if the appellants were entitled to file a suit at Sagar. It may be noted at the outset that there are eight defendants in this case and the defendants Nos. 1 to 7 have their offices at Bhopal and the defendant No. 8 has its office at Sagar. It cannot be disputed that the cause of action arose at Bhopal as Raju Thakur was killed at Bhopal. The appellants cannot claim that any part of the cause of action arose at Sagar. Therefore, the only way, the appellants can justify filing of the civil suit is that within the meaning of sections 19 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the defendant No. 8 carries on its business or personally works for gain and, therefore, the suit could be filed at Sagar. It is very clear that the District Collector, Sagar, who has been made a party, as defendant/respondent No. 8 in the suit, was nowhere involved in actual commission of the tort of causing the death of Raju Thakur. Normally, the respondent could not be liable in any manner in his personal capacity. In the official capacity he is merely a representative of the State Government, posted at Sagar. Therefore, merely because the respondent No. 8 was made a party to the suit, it cannot be said that the suit lay within the jurisdiction of District Judge, Sagar. That apart, the collector, Sagar was being sued in official capacity and not in personal capacity.