- (1.) THESE are two second appeals arising from two connected suits : (1) Suit No. 127 of 1964 which was the leading case and the plaintiffs in which were Gopal Prasad and 3 others, who are the four appellants in Second Appeal No. 2866 of 1968; and (2) Suit No. 206 of 1965 in which the plaintiff was Gopal Prasad Chaturvedi who is the sole appellant in Second Appeal No. 2864 of 1968. The first of these two suits was for a permanent injunction for restraining the defendant State of Uttar Pradesh from realising in one lump sum or by arresting the plaintiff, the amount of a loan which had been taken by him. The other suit was for damages against the defendant State of Uttar Pradesh and Sri R. C. Saxena, the then Tehsildar, Mathura, and Sri Raghunandan Swarup, the then District Industries Officer, Mathura, in the sum of Rs. 2,000/-, for wrongfully arresting the plaintiff in order to recover another loan.
(2.) THE trial court decreed both the suits, by issue of a permanent injunction in Suit No. 127 of 1964 restraining the defendant State of Uttar Pradesh and its officers from making a lump sum recovery of the loan as arrears of land revenue, under certificate dated 14th Nov. 1962 (Paper No. 72/A in Suit No. 206 of 1965); and by decreeing recovery of Rs. 2,000/- as damages against all the three defendants in Suit No. 206 of 1965. The defendants appealed to the District Court from the decrees in both the suits. The appeals were allowed and both the suits for injunction and damages were dismissed. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant in Second Appeal No. 2866 of 1968 stated before that the amount of loan for the recovery of which proceedings had been taken against the plaintiff Sri Gopal Prasad Chaturvedi, and in respect of which injunction was sought in Suit No. 127 of 1964 must have been paid off by now under the interim order of this Court dated Nov. 29, 1968 and consequently Second Appeal No. 2866 of 1968 arising from the suit for injunction has become infructuous and was liable to be dismissed as such but prayed that there may be no order as to costs.
(3.) IN the suit for damages giving rise to Second Appeal No. 2864 of 1968, the following six issues were framed by the trial court :- " (1) Whether the plaintiff was wrongfully and maliciously arrested as alleged in the plaint? If so which defendant is responsible? (2) Whether the plaintiff suffered any damages? If so to what compensation the plaintiff is entitled? (3) Whether defendant No. 1is also liable for the acts of any of the other defendants? (4) Whether defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are not liable as alleged in para 11 of the written statement of defendant No. 3 and para 9 of the written statement of defendant No. 2? (5) Whether the notice under S. 80 C. P. C. is valid? (6) Plaintiff s relief?" ;