JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL Vs. JOGINDER MASIH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant revision petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.11.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Jalandhar whereby respondent no.1-plaintiff has been allowed to withdraw the suit with permission to file fresh after serving notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short "CPC") and the application moved by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been simply disposed of without recording reasons.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are to the effect that respondent no.1-plaintiff filed suit for damages and compensation against the alleged act and conduct of the petitioner and respondent no.2. The petitioner filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC raising various objections including objections under Order 27 Rule 5-A CPC, wherein, it is mentioned that if a person in discharge of his official duties has committed any act and the damages are claimed from such public servant, then the government is a necessary party. Respondent no.1-plaintiff has not impleaded the State of Punjab as a defendant in the main suit. Besides this, it is alleged that the judicial officers while discharging judicial functions are also protected from prosecution. In addition, there is protection granted under the provisions of the Punjab Civil Services Rules to the public servants when any act is done by them in discharge of their public duties.

(3.) With these averments, the application was moved by the petitioner for rejection of plaint, but without deciding the said application, the petitioner has been permitted to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh after serving notice under Section 80 CPC. Hence, this revision petition.