9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the institution of the two suits against some defendants is barred by Section 270(1) of the Government of India Act without the Governor's consent. 2. Whether the Munsif's order striking off certain defendants is appealable as a decree. 3. Whether the acts alleged in the plaint constitute official acts done in the execution of duty. 4. Whether the allegations of conspiracy and malicious intent affect the official character of the acts. 5. Whether the proper remedy was an appeal rather than a civil revision. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Bar under Section 270(1) of the Government of India Act: The central question in both civil revisions is whether the suits against certain defendants are barred by Section 270(1) of the Government of India Act due to the absence of the Governor's consent. Section 270(1) applies to suits against any person for acts done in the execution of their duty as a servant of the Crown. The Munsif held that the acts complained of were performed in the execution of official duties, thus requiring the Governor's consent for the suit to proceed. This decision was based on the authoritative interpretation of similar statutory language in Section 80, Civil P.C., and relevant case law, including Hori Ram Singh v. Emperor and Bhagchand Daagdusa v. Secretary of State. 2. Appealability of the Munsif's Order: The preliminary objection raised by the Advocate-General was that the applications should be dismissed because the petitioner did not appeal to the District Judge, which was a more appropriate remedy. The definition of "decree" in Section 2(2), Civil P.C., includes the rejection of a plaint, and the Munsif's order striking off defendants was considered a decree. The court cited cases such as Rama Rao v. Raja of Pittapore and Sherali v. Jamohna Ram, which held that the substance of the order determines its appealability. The practice of the court is to abstain from interference in revision when an appeal remedy is available but not utilized. 3. Official Acts in Execution of Duty: The court examined whether the acts alleged in the plaint were done in the execution of official duties. The Munsif found that the acts of receiving an affidavit and filing a complaint by defendant 1, and the giving of depositions by defendants 2 and 6, were official acts. The court upheld this finding, noting that the official character of an act is not negated by allegations of bad faith or conspiracy. The applicability of Section 270(1) depends on the nature of the act, not the alleged motives behind it. 4. Allegations of Conspiracy and Malicious Intent: The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants conspired to bring false charges against them. The court held that the character of an official act is not changed by such allegations. The receipt of an affidavit and the making of a complaint were official acts, and the suit could not proceed without the Governor's consent. The court emphasized that attributing malice or conspiracy does not alter the official nature of the acts. 5. Proper Remedy - Appeal vs. Civil Revision: The court agreed with the Advocate-General that the proper remedy was an appeal rather than a civil revision. The Munsif's order was considered a decree, and the plaintiff should have appealed. The court referenced the decision in Razaur Rahaman v. Udit Singh, which established that an order removing a defendant's name from a suit is appealable and that the High Court typically does not exercise revisional powers when an appeal remedy is available but not pursued. Conclusion: Both applications were dismissed with costs on the preliminary ground that the proper remedy was an appeal. The court did not find it necessary to express an opinion on the merits of the applications, as the failure to appeal was sufficient to dismiss the cases. The judgments emphasized that the acts in question were official acts done in the execution of duty, and the suits were barred by Section 270(1) of the Government of India Act without the Governor's consent.
|
