BRAHAM DUTT Vs. EAST PUNJAB PROVINCE
LAWS(P&H)-1957-9-18
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on September 16,1957

BRAHAM DUTT Appellant
VERSUS
EAST PUNJAB PROVINCE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Senior Sub-Judge, karnal, dismissing the plaintiff-appellant's suit for recovery of Rs. 5,713/13/-, based on the following facts.
(2.) BRAHAM Dutt was the owner of a Vauxhal car registered in his name at No. PBE 325. In September, 1947, he had lent the car temporarily to Iqbal Ahmad Khan, a resident of Shahbad, District Karnal. Shri Roshan Lal, defendant No. 2, was posted as the District Magistrate, and Mr. K. N. Sahni, defendant No. 3, as Magistrate 1st class, Karnal, in those days. On 22nd September, 1947, defendant No. 3 took possession of the said car and removed it to the Police Station, Shahbad, falsely representing that the car had been requisitioned under orders of the District Magistrate defendant No. 2. The district Magistrate had no authority to requisition the car, nor was any notice of requisition served upon the plaintiff. The car was most carelessly used by defendants Nos. 2 and 3, till it was returned to the plaintiff on 7th May, 1948. At the time of delivery, the car was not only greatly damaged but a number of its parts were missing. The plaintiff thus claimed- (i) Rs. 3,435/- as compensation for use of the car by the defendants at the rate of Rs. 15/- per day; (ii) Rs. 1,700/- for the damage done to the car during-this period; and (iii) RS. 578713/- as price of the missing parts. The State Government was impleaded as defendant No. 1 and the amount was claimed from defendant No. 1 in case it was found that the other two defendants acted in their official capacity and on behalf of and for the purposes of the Government.
(3.) THE defendants, besides denying the allegations, raised a number of legal objections which gave rise to the following preliminary issues:--1. Whether the plaintiff gave a notice under Section 80 of the C. P. C. , and if so then is the notice valid? 2. Whether the suit is barred by the provisions-of law mentioned in the written statements? 3. Whether defendants 2 and 3 are protected under the provisions of the judicial Officers Protection Act?;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.