RAGHBIR SINGH Vs. BALJIT SINGH BUTTAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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. The plaintiff -appellant filed suit for recovery of Rs. 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.

(2.) THE Trial Court decreed the suit holding the plaintiff entitled to recover damages in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ - from each of the defendant (total amounting to Rs. 3 lacs) along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till actual realization.

(3.) AGGRIEVED against the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court, the plaintiff has filed three separate appeals, referred to above, in which he has submitted that provisions of Order 27 Rule 5 -A CPC are not attracted because the defendants have not performed the duty in their official capacity while entering the name of the plaintiff in Surveillance Register No. X. It is submitted that it was a mala fide act on the part of the respondents to spoil the political and social image, of the plaintiff for which they are not entitled to any protection.